[WORKBENCH] Brahms Op. 119, No. 1

[Knut]

I think that you may be referring to the slurs that accompany the pattern in measure 5 throughout the piece and also the missing slurs in the EC and first edition starting at measure 45. These constitute a special case, because they are so haphazard that they indicate a lack of care by all concerned rather than any possible preference on the part of the composer. In this case, we are simply doing what should have occurred in the first place and this does not need to be indicated to the player in the musical text. The critical report will be sufficient.

The slurs m. 29-20 and m 31-32 and the missing intensity marks are similar, yet not as clear-cut. I felt that their omission should be pointed out. I can understand the opposite view.

The slur in 24 is conjectural and this must be pointed out. The dynamic indications from the MS in 14-15 and 39-40 are informative and this also must be shown in some way.

This leaves the substitution of the MS piu PP for the EC piu P and the dashed lines in 65. In both cases, the composer's markings are so much more logical and informative to the player than what happens in the EC, that an arbitrary decision or error on the part of the copyist seems probable. However, I can understand indicating these as well, although I am less concerned about them and didn't do so to avoid encumbering the musical text. They also will be discussed in the critical report.

That was the reasoning behind my decisions. As you know, there are various ways of showing variants in critical editions: dynamic markings in smaller type, dynamic markings in a different font (New Mozart Edition), dashed slurs, footnotes etc. I will now investigate the various critical editions to see what would really be best in the case of this first offering from the Notatio New Brahms Edition!

I see your points, but I'm still not convinced that it is important to distinguish between 'source based' edits and 'personal edits' in the score. I think the important thing is to point this out in the commentary. At least from an aesthetic point of view, since there are no symbols in parenthesis in any of the sources already, and since it is a more dynamic and space effective shape than square brackets, I'd vote for marking all edits in parenthesis. All other alternatives you point out, seem less preferable to me from the standpoint of aesthetics, and do not seem to be superior in terms of clarity.

As far as the hairpins, I was referring to the MS rather than the first edition. It is clear to me that the width of the hairpins varies with the degree of emphasis in the MS. All the strongest moments have the largest hairpins. How could they not? The composer is notating a deeply emotional swell by hand. Given the space, would the composer write narrow little hairpins? I think that this needs to be shown in some way, while staying within the bounds of what is reasonable and in good taste. M. 16 is another place where I opened the hairpin a little to show stronger emphasis. But I think that you are right that the hairpins in 33-34 are over the top, and I will correct that.

I believe that while all the traditions of music notation and engraving must always be taken into account, the expression of the composer's intent takes precedence and one the greatest things about computer engraving is our new ability to express things in engraving that have never been expressed before.

I know you were. My point was that there is a difference between handwritten manuscripts and engraved music in this regard. There seems to be little if any evidence that the expressive use of hairpins in Brahms' manuscripts was ever carried over to any of the 1st editions. If Brahms really felt strongly about conveying the nuances of hairpin openings to the performer, I would imagine that some 1st editions would include them, especially if you are correct about his attention to hairpin placement.

I would vote for 9 x 12 format, which is a standard and given the fact that our examples are virtual rather than printed. But maybe everyone should do their own thing?

The margins on music in 9 x12 format seems to vary from about 5/8 to 7/8 of an inch. It is not clear to me if the brace is taken into account. Finale disregards them. It is also unclear to me whether the R inside margin should be different from the L inside margin given the brace. In any case, I expanded my margins to 5/8 of an inch on both sides and applied a 2% reduction to the page. No overcrowding has resulted, and I will now start editing with your suggestions in mind.

I would prefer that we agree on both format and margins so that those do not factor in to the comparison. I have nothing against 9x12" (Concert) format other than how it will look when printed by most Europeans. (Then again, A4 will probably present similar problems for most people in North America, so this is not a good enough reason.)

I would suggest margins of 2 cm (.79") on all sides of a concert page. Practices vary as to whether the brace is placed inside or outside the left margin, but since this 'edition' is likely not going to be bound, I think having them outside the margin is fine, and the simplest solution.

To maintain independence, I am still withholding a viewing of your own engraving until I have finished this round of editing in spite of my great eagerness to see it.

As I'm currently working on the edited version, I wouldn't have it any other way.

[John Ruggero]

I have attached a second version of the Brahms intermezzo with corrections made in response to comments by Knut and OCTO.

OCTO, I tried different fonts for the flags and rests, but nothing in my small collection of fonts worked with Maestro. I would prefer slightly less bold dots and a little bolder lines for the rests and experimented with Petrucci, but it is too light.

Knut, you might be interested in looking through the Wiener Urtext edition of the Chopin Etudes edited by Paul Badura-Skoda. It is unique in putting all the many variants into the musical text, rather than a critical report and makes use of an elaborate but very effective apparatus to do so. It is a practical as well as critical edition, and in spite of all the many markings, is very clear and easy to read. I mention this because I borrowed one of their usages: a small Aut. and small font to indicate supplementary material from the composer's MS. In this way, there are now only brackets in my engraving to indicate additions not found in any of the primary sources.

http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/The ... gQodb7cC5Q

[John Ruggero]

Knut, our posts crossed.

I am not sure that the first editions of Brahms music show no influence of the MS, not having studied them. But if that is the case, it might be because the engravers never saw a MS, only clean copies by other hands!*

We do have a new and very valuable source for comparing a composer’s MS and the early editions of his music: the Chopin Variorum edition

http://www.chopinonline.ac.uk/ocve/browse

I spent a little time browsing there and see a wide range in treatment by engravers of Chopin’s hairpins. Some imitate the length and width of the MS quite accurately, while others could care less. The hairpins have a much greater range than they do today. The openings can be very wide (I mean HUGE) or very narrow. It is clear that the best engravers were aware of meaning attached to the shape of these hairpins and were doing their best to imitate EXACTLY what they saw in the MS. Check out the Ballade no. 1 and you will see what I mean.

I looked through my collection of piano music taking measurements. The length of a line of music seems to vary from 7.25 to 7.75 in., from publisher to publisher, and even within a single publication. The New Mozart Edition has lines of 7.75 inches, which leaves .625 in. for each of the left-right margins on a 9 x 12 page. This is smaller than those in my second Brahms version posted above.

The Henle edition of the Beethoven Violin Sonatas uses 7.5 in. lines with .75 margins on some pages and 7.25 lines with .875 margins on others! Wiener urtext editions often have 7 3/8 in. lines with .8125 margins, etc.

All editions use top and bottom margins of various sizes from page to page depending on the space requirements. The music can go within .5 inches of the top or bottom of the page as necessary.

Given the variation, I see no standard practice at work other than the standard 9 x 12 in. page, the 7.25—7.75 in. range for a line of music, and the .625—.875 in. range for left-right margins.

*In spite of being an ardent admirer of Brahms, I must say that he had the worst musical handwriting of any composer known to me and possibly little interest in the niceties of engraving. Most of his reputation as careful editor of his own music seems to rest on the work of Robert Keller, who was a totally dedicated and meticulous craftsman, but may not have been a musically gifted person, because Brahms hated his arrangements of his music and did his best (behind the scenes) to have others do them!

[Knut]

Knut, you might be interested in looking through the Wiener Urtext edition of the Chopin Etudes edited by Paul Badura-Skoda. It is unique in putting all the many variants into the musical text, rather than a critical report and makes use of an elaborate but very effective apparatus to do so. It is a practical as well as critical edition, and in spite of all the many markings, is very clear and easy to read. I mention this because I borrowed one of their usages: a small Aut. and small font to indicate supplementary material from the composer's MS. In this way, there are now only brackets in my engraving to indicate additions not found in any of the primary sources.

http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/The ... gQodb7cC5Q

Thanks, John. That is indeed interesting, and it looks better than I expected. Do the cue staffs on one of the pages represent errors of pitch? I can't tell from the low resolution preview.
The main problem with this solution is the extra space it requires for each page. With the number of errors in the Brahms, adopting this whole system is probably not the way to go, but some of it is certainly worth considering. I'll experiment a bit on my end as well.

My main issue with square brackets is that they require a larger shift in the placement of some objects they apply to, particularly the intensity marks. Ideally, these should be placed consistently regardless of wether they are bracketed or not, but the closing bracket will cut through the slurs if they aren't shifted vertically. None of the alternatives look very good to me.

Given the variation, I see no standard practice at work other than the standard 9 x 12 in. page, the 7.25—7.75 in. range for a line of music, and the .625—.875 in. range for left-right margins.

I didn't mean to imply that there existed some sort of firm standard concerning margins in music. I just think we should agree upon a format and layout scheme, especially if different versions of this piece are to be compiled in a single pdf like in the Elegy comparison that started this discussion. 2 cm margins gives a nice balance, in my opinion, and it's integer value is easy to work with.

BTW, top and bottom margins do not usually vary across pages as you say, but the music is often placed farther inside the margins if requires less vertical space. Page numbers, and in some cases, the catalog # are usually consistently placed across pages.

[Knut]

Here's my first attempt at an editorial version, (mostly) in accordance with John's suggested edits. Other improvements, such as the spacing error pointed out by OCTO, were also made.

Some of the fonts have been replaced for consistency with the editorial scheme, and the format has been changed to Concert (9x12 in.) with 2 cm margins on all sides.

Intermezzo-Corrected-01p1.jpg (729.29 KiB) Viewed 9784 times

Intermezzo-Corrected-01p2.jpg (849.15 KiB) Viewed 9784 times

[John Ruggero]

Knut said:

BTW, top and bottom margins do not usually vary across pages as you say, but the music is often placed farther inside the margins if requires less vertical space. Page numbers, and in some cases, the catalog # are usually consistently placed across pages.

We are probably saying the same thing just a little differently, but a further clarification:

In the Wiener Urtext edition of the Chopin I mentioned, there is a catalogue number that runs almost (see below) throughout at .5 inches from the bottom of the page. (The right and left margins are set at .75 inches.)

On the first page of music, the copyright notice has its bottom margin at about .4 inches from the bottom. On the second page of music, a pedal mark also has its bottom margin at .5 inches so that it would have run into the catalogue number if it had been over a little further. On the third page of music the bottom margin of the footnotes is at .75 in. From this point on, the bottom margin of the music or footnotes varies from page to page but never transgresses the bottom catalogue margin at .5 in. although it can run right into to it...

…until page 71, where there was a space issue because of the many footnotes, the catalogue number was eliminated, and the bottom margin of the footnotes is now at .25 in.

It is similar with the top margin, where the top of the music is at various distances from the top of the but never transgresses the bottom margin of the page numbers at .5 inches from the top of the page. However, as necessary it can run almost into the bottom margin of the page numbers.

From this one might conclude that the top margin is inviolate, but the bottom might not be. However, I open my trusty Bach WTC I (Bischoff edition), and notice that the title of Prelude no. 4 runs considerably beyond the page number top margin.

From this I conclude, that while music engravers would prefer to adhere to established margins as much as possible, these margins are not inviolate and will sometimes give way to other requirement as long as the music remains legible. Example: if forced, a high note or slur or articulation etc.might run beyond the top page number margin if that note etc. is an isolated event in the middle of the page, but not if it is very close to the page number. Same for a low note at the bottom of the page.

[Knut]

[quote="John Ruggero"]I have attached a second version of the Brahms intermezzo with corrections made in response to comments by Knut and OCTO.

That's even better, John.

I noticed a few more things:

Your side margins are much better, but I would prefer even more space at the top (above the page numbers) and bottom.

Your accidentals generally take up a bit too much space. This is primarily Finale's fault. Make sure to compress spacing around accidentals by about 1/4–1/2 space. Also, the flag at the end of m. 22 is too close to the barline.

Some of your dots are too close to other objects, particularly mm. 11, 43, 44 and 65.

Right hand slurs in m. 5 and 13 should be placed above the staff (or at least farther from the noteheads).

Ties collide with noteheads in mm. 49, 55 and 57.

Other than that there still is some issues with the aspects I've mentioned before, but I'm guessing you either haven't gotten around to fixing them yet or disagree with my opinion, so I won't repeat myself.

[Knut]

From this I conclude, that while music engravers would prefer to adhere to established margins as much as possible, these margins are not inviolate and will sometimes give way to other requirement as long as the music remains legible. Example: if forced, a high note or slur or articulation etc.might run beyond the top page number margin if that note etc. is an isolated event in the middle of the page, but not if it is very close to the page number. Same for a low note at the bottom of the page.

You are absolutely correct in pointing out that there is numerous ways of handling margins and page text to secure the best possible layout of each individual page. I'm only stating my personal preference in the context of this piece, and I see no apparent reason why we shouldn't agree upon a common layout scheme, similar to that of a publisher's house style. We are engraving the same piece after all. However, if engravers feel very strongly about their own setup, I certainly won't object.

[tisimst]

Ok. I just wanted to double check (since this thread seems to mostly be a discussion between Knut and John Ruggero, which has been awesome to follow), but which score are we supposed to be using as the "original" and which critical edits should we be including?

[John Ruggero]

tisimst wrote:

which score are we supposed to be using as the "original" and which critical edits should we be including?

Good question. Actually, it hasn't been completely established that this is the work that will be an example piece! So there haven't been any ground rules set up other than using software to engrave.

In my opinion, this should be completely open and free for everyone to do their own thing, so if by "score" you mean the MS, the EC, the first edition, the Complete Works, or some other edition, I would think that would be up to each engraver.

And I would think that it would be the same for anything editorial.

But this needs to be discussed and agreed upon by all.