Am 29.07.2013 20:53, schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
Hi Urs,
What exactly do you mean by 'manuscript' and 'editorials'?
'Manuscript' is what Beethoven himself wrote, or (by huge consensus of multiple
editors across multiple engraving houses) is generally understood to have meant.
'Editorials' is what some specific editor (e.g., the Henle editor) added for a
specific edition: fingerings, courtesy accidentals, etc.
Or style tweaks relevant to that concrete score?
And editorials: editorial markings or styles for that score?
Editorial markings (e.g., fingering not added by Beethoven) and the like could
be put into a file like
Beethoven_Op10No3_Henle_Winter19751976_editorials.ily
Plate adjustments (e.g., the specific whiteout-ing and placement of the ff in m.22), etc.
— what you call "style tweaks relevant to that concrete score" — could be put
directly into the main output file:
Beethoven_Op10No3_Henle_Winter19751976.ly
\include Beethoven_Op10No3_Henle_Winter19751976_editorials.ily
or included separately still:
Beethoven_Op10No3_Henle_Winter19751976.ly
\include Beethoven_Op10No3_Henle_Winter19751976_tweaks.ily
\include Beethoven_Op10No3_Henle_Winter19751976_editorials.ily
I'm strongly against mixing engraving and editing in your project.
+1
I'm trying to "completely" separate content from presentation (although I find
it extremely difficult to do well, given Lilypond's current toolkit — I know you're
working on improving that!).
What you are proposing is a set of style sheets affecting the engraving,
and this should in no way impose any way to organize the editing process.
Correct: the editing should happen only on the last step, after the "basic Henle
piano music house style" has been achieved through stylesheets.
Could you please say something more specific about how you intend these files?
Maybe some sample entries?
It will no doubt become clearer as I finalize the file set — expect that
sometime later this week.
I think I'll wait for that to show up. As I'm still not really sure what
you mean I might criticize the wrong things ...
If you find a way to elegantly input different editorial layers
separately, I'd be the first to be happy.
'Manuscript' might not be the best wording though. I think what you are
referring to is something like the 'main source'.
That's for example what a renowned Schoenberg editor told me. When I
asked him how to select which source to use as the main source he argued
that one sometimes has to be quite pragmatic: just use the source as the
main one that requires the smallest number of documented readings and
deviations.
I think this is what you are referring to here.
And in our special case this main source would be the Henle edition in
its entirety.
If you want to separate this into manuscript and editorial additions you
would actually have to redo the whole editorial process - which actually
isn't necessary for what we're actually after.
Best
Urs
Best,
Kieren.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
