By Alex Widstrand

While the music itself takes center stage within a Recent Researches edition, it is to the critical report that readers must look to understand the “nuts and bolts” of how the edition was put together. This is where you will find a list of the musical sources and a detailed statement of editorial methodology outlining where and how source readings have been modernized and standardized. In some cases, however, an emended reading does not lend itself well to being addressed as a matter of global policy—an individual note error, for instance—and is better reported with a critical note: a short verbal description, cued by measure and part, of some element in the source that has been changed in the edition.

Even for experienced music editors, constructing critical notes often poses a challenge: how do we describe elements of music notation in a way that is concise, consistent, and can be easily parsed by a reader assumed to have access only to the edition in front of them and not the material on which the edition is based? In most cases, this question is easily addressed by recognizing the four principal types of emended source readings and the appropriate “formula” to use for critical notes reporting each type. The general guidelines presented below—not comprehensive, but broadly applicable to the most common situations in which a critical note is needed—give an overview of A-R’s preferred critical note syntax as a starting point for prospective Recent Researches editors. While ours is not the only valid system for writing critical notes, adhering to a uniform system within our publications allows us to maintain a consistent standard across the Recent Researches series and greatly facilitates accuracy and efficiency throughout the copyediting and production processes.

Before delving into any specifics, I suggest that readers revisit our previous post “Critical Notes 101: Some Dos and Don’ts” outlining the basics of Recent Researches-style critical notes. A few key points from that post are worth reiterating:

  1. Critical notes describe the source, not the edition. In other words, avoid critical notes along the lines of “note x changed from c to d.” Instead, simply write “note x is c.” This is sufficient to call the reader’s attention to the fact that the specified note has been changed in the edition—they can then simply turn to the corresponding point in the score to see what the source pitch has been changed to.
  2. Critical notes should not duplicate elements of editorial notation in the score (bracketed accidentals, dashed slurs, articulations in parentheses, etc. to indicate elements added by the editor—see our protip “Showing Editorial Interventions”). One of the main advantages of using editorial notation, after all, is to minimize the need for critical notes. Similarly, elements changed globally as outlined in the editorial methods statement are not listed in the critical notes.
  3. Critical notes should avoid lengthy descriptions of the source, analytical prose, or justification for making a particular editorial change. There are other places in the edition where that information can go, if needed.

The first of these points is the most important one to keep in mind when writing critical notes. Remember, your critical notes describe a source that readers likely do not have access to (and even if they do, it saves them the hassle of having to compare the source against the edition). They therefore need to be structured in a way that is precise enough to avoid any ambiguity.

There are four main types of editorial emendation that are reported in the critical notes:

  1. Replacement: An element in the source (pitch, note value, articulation mark, dynamic, etc.) is changed to something else in the edition.
  2. Omission: An element in the source is excluded from the edition.
  3. Addition: An element absent in the source is supplied by the editor. (Note, however, that this type of emendation usually does not need a critical note, for reasons detailed below.)
  4. Relocation: A source element is preserved in the edition but moved from its original position.

By thinking of emendations in terms of these categories, the task of writing appropriate critical notes becomes a bit easier, since each category corresponds to a specific syntactical formula that can be applied in most cases. The remainder of this post examines each category in detail and offers numerous examples drawn from recent and forthcoming A-R publications illustrating the ways in which they are applied.

1. “Be” Notes: Replacing a Source Element

The most common type of emendation is replacing a dubious source element—pitch, dynamic, articulation, continuo figure, etc.—in the edition. In these situations, the critical note should follow the formula “x is/are y,” where x represents the element type and y is the source reading. Some examples:

M. 15, C, note 2 is cʺ. = The pitch has been changed in the edition. Rhythmic changes are reported with the same formula (e.g., “note 2 is 16th”). Observe that here the word “note” does double duty, referring to both the location of the reading within the measure and also the pitch of the note in question, the latter being the emended element.

M. 81, Va., notes 2–3 are f♯ʹ–gʹ. = Two consecutive pitches have been changed.

M. 74, Ob., note 2 is gʺ dotted half. = Both the pitch and note value have been changed.

M. 54, B.c., beat 3, figure is 6/5. = The continuo figure has been changed in the edition.

M. 47, Vn. 1, note 1, dynamic is p. = The source dynamic marking has been replaced.

Mm. 13–14, T, text is “salvatorem.” = The text underlay in the source has been replaced. In this case, a specific note, rest, or beat is not specified because no other text occurs in this measure in the source, so there is no risk of confusion by simplifying the critical note slightly.

M. 46, Pf., r.h., beat 3, accents are staccatos. = Here, one articulation has been substituted for another.

Where these notes contain a participle, however, the verb “be” can be dropped:

M. 47, Vc., notes 1–2 and 3–5 slurred separately. = In this case, two short slurs in the source have been replaced by a single longer slur in the edition.

A somewhat tricky situation occurs when a note value in the source (a quarter note, for example) is replaced by a smaller note value and a rest (let’s say an eighth note and an eighth rest). In such instances, the easiest strategy is usually to report the change by beat (“beat x is quarter”). If the musical context makes this approach impractical, the alternative would be to report the changed note value as usual (“note x is quarter”). In some cases, it may then be prudent to either follow up with a parenthetical “rest is absent” or place the added rest in brackets to dispel any potential ambiguity.

2. “Have” Notes: Omitting a Source Element

Another common change is omitting a source element in the edition. While many such omissions can be handled as a matter of global editorial policy (e.g., tacitly excluding redundant accidentals, articulations, and dynamic markings), some are better listed individually in the critical notes. The formula for this type of emendation is “x has/have y,” where x represents the note, rest, or beat in question and y represents the omitted element:

M. 241, S, note 2 has fermata.

M. 35, Cemb., note 6 has figure 7.

In most cases, however, this formula should not be used when omitting a note or rest. In those instances, a “be” note is usually more appropriate. For example, rather than “beat 1 has aʹ quarter,” write “beat 1 is aʹ quarter.” However, there are occasions when a “have” note is the better option, such as the following example in which a measure of 2/4 time is overfilled by an eighth:

M. 23, Fl. 1-2, note 2 followed by extra 8th rest. = In this case, there is no beat to map the omitted rest onto (in the edition, the measure ends at note 2), so it is better to say that the measure has an extra rest after the final note.

Occasionally, a “have” note needs to piggyback on a “be” note. For instance, if in the previous example the extra 8th rest had also had a fermata, we would need to report the elimination of that fermata as well as the rest. The best way to do this would be to substitute “with” for “have,” thus: “M. 23, Fl. 1-2, note 2 followed by extra 8th rest with fermata.”

3. “Lack” Notes: Reporting Editorially Added Elements

In most cases, editorial additions do not require a critical note at all (again, see our protip on showing editorial interventions). Many notational elements supplied by the editor—accidentals, articulations, dynamics, literals, continuo figures, ties and slurs, fermatas, and so on—can be distinguished graphically in the score if explained in the editorial methods statement, which then obviates the need for a critical note. However, where an element cannot be supplied via editorial notation or added tacitly as a matter of global editorial policy, a critical note should be used. Where this type of note is needed, we prefer the neutral verb “lack” to simply note that an element is not present in the source.[1]

Mm. 1–8, Tpt. lacks barlines.

M. 610, Va., note 1 lacks tremolo slash.

Another situation where a “lack” note is sometimes needed occurs in large-ensemble works (symphonies, operas, etc.) where multiple parts share a staff. Because this type of notation often involves combining stems, merging noteheads, and so on, it sometimes becomes impossible, or at least impractical, to use editorial notation in a situation where it would otherwise be preferable. Take the following example: in George Frederick Bristow’s Symphony No. 4 in E Minor, Op. 50 (“Arcadian”), edited by Katherine K. Preston and Kyle Gann (A094), the source notates the paired woodwinds on separate staves, but in the edition each pair is merged onto a single staff. In measures 392–94 of the first movement, the two bassoon parts are common-stemmed in the edition, which means that the slur in the edition applies to both parts (see example 1).

Example 1. George Frederick Bristow, Symphony No. 4 in E Minor, movement I, “Allegro appassionato” (mm. 389–94, bassoon 1-2 only), from Symphony No. 4 in E Minor, Op. 50 (“Arcadian”), edited by Katherine K. Preston and Kyle Gann (A094), 49.

However, in the source, bassoon 1 lacks this slur, yet the common stemming prevents the addition of a dashed slur here. We therefore need a critical note:

Mm. 392–94, Bn. 1 lacks slur.

4. “Moved from” Notes: Relocating a Source Element

A source element that is preserved often needs to be moved to a different spot in the edition. This is most common with dynamics and continuo figures, but it can apply to other elements as well. In these cases, the critical note syntax is a bit more varied depending on the type of notation being relocated. Most often, the note takes the form “A, x moved from B,” where A represents the location of the moved element in the edition, x represents the element itself, and B represents the location of the moved element in the source. For example:

M. 33, Cemb., note 2, figure moved from note 1.

M. 98, Pf., beat 2, dynamic ff moved from beat 4.

M. 103, V, fermata moved from note 2.

However, not all moves are so straightforward. Take, for instance, the following example from John Eccles, Incidental Music, Part 3, edited by Alan Howard (B237), in which the source had misplaced a continuo figure natural as an accidental on the staff:

M. 15, B.c., note 1, figure printed as ♮ before notehead.

The “moved from” formula also does not work well for elements that span multiple notes, namely slurs, hairpins, and various types of horizontal brackets. In these situations, the critical note needs to specify whether the starting point, ending point, or both has been changed in the edition, for which we would use the verbs “begins,” “ends,” and “spans,” respectively.

M. 366, Va., diminuendo hairpin begins on m. 364, note 1. = Only the starting point of this hairpin has been changed in the edition.

M. 228, Vn. 1, slur ends on note 4. = Only the ending point of this slur has been changed.

M. 75, Va., slurs span notes 1–2 and 3–5. = Here, both the starting and ending points of this pair of slurs have been changed.

Final Thoughts

While during the editing process you will inevitably encounter unusual source situations that do not lend themselves well to these four principal categories of emendation, the examples in this post should give you a broad idea of A-R’s preferred approach to writing critical notes. The myriad ambiguities and interpretive challenges posed by musical sources mean that there is no “one size fits all” strategy for reporting editorial emendations. As long as your critical notes are clear and consistent, slight deviations from the guidelines detailed here are permissible if your source situation warrants a more flexible approach. If you are preparing a proposal for Recent Researches or Special Publications and are unsure how to handle a particular emendation, please do not hesitate to reach out to our editorial staff.

Alex Widstrand is a house editor with A-R Editions.

 

[1] In some cases, “is absent” or “is missing” may be more appropriate. These are best reserved for descriptions of the source itself (e.g., “Tenor partbook missing,” or “Movement 1 absent from harp performance part.”) The verb “omitted,” however, should be avoided, since it can be easily misread as “the editor omitted this source element” when the exact opposite meaning is intended.