Composers could be notoriously fickle about their editions. Some went through draft after draft, revising their work, and disowning earlier editions. For example, there is more than one extant version of Faure's famous Requiem. Does the editor ignore or prefer the earlier version? Do they do a mega-edition and include more than one publicaton? Is that feasible economically? Is it what the customers want? What might the composer have wanted if still alive? Often there is no right answer, or what is right for now will be seen to be wrong in later decades. Music editing can be subject to "fashion" or "trends" just like clothing.

Having checked the sources for completeness (bars can be missing in manuscripts), authority (is there one in the composer's own hand?) and date (earlier is generally better, but note above comments), and having done some research about the composer, the work and the context, preferably from primary sources, the intrepid editor is ready to score the work, either by hand or nowadays, onto computer.

What about mistakes? They can occur anywhere, and obvious ones are easy to detect. But a knowledge of the musical style is absolutely necessary, for dissonance has been used in many different ways in different periods. There is much Renaissance music where one could "correct" the notes, but the editor would be wrong to do so, as the dissonances were intentional, and become beautiful when your ear becomes accustomed to hearing them in context.

Songs have their own problems. Word underlay was generally vague for many centuries, and there may be more than one satisfactory solution to setting a text to the notes. The editor also needs a knowledge of languages if setting foreign texts, lest the results be laughable.

What about different notational conventions? Up until the 17th century, it was common practice for music to be unbarred, and therefore accidentals always applied only to the note next to them, and did not carry on through the bar even if there were bars. First and second time bar signs, repeats and other signs were not standardised, and various experiments can be encountered along the way. Performance conventions were often so well known in earlier centuries that they were not notated either. What should go in and what not? What about where a composer indicated an intention (slurs, articulation) at the beginning of a piece and assume the player would continue it. Editors must be wary.

Then the editor has to deal with figured basses in baroque music. Should the figures go in? Should a realisation be written? If so, how detailed should it be? Should it be a mere skeleton of the harmony, or a solid accompaniment? There's historical evidence for both approaches. Should just the figures go in for the keyboard player to realise their own, perhaps on a blank staff?

Early 20th century editors thought nothing of halving, quartering or even eighthing time values, transposing music and adding their own dynamics, metronome markings and ideas to a work, particularly those prior to the 18th century (Bach and Handel included). Notes might even be changed. No indication would occur to show the editor's alterations, and since other editions were not necessarily available, that editor's decisions coloured our knowledge of that music. Other editions could well have been copied from these faulty works and the problem compounded. These days, several conventions apply which counter this problem.

Firstly, an incipit before the music starts, consisting of the original clef, key and time signatures and the first note. This shows any transposition, alteration to time values and in some cases gives valuable information about instrumentation. Within the music, editorial additions are shown either in square brackets, or with a small vertical line through slurs or ties. Editorial accidentals are often put above the note, as a suggestion or a correction. Good musicological editions will contain a succinct introduction stating historical and biographical information, context of the work(s), performance suggestions, editorial method and the critical commentary.

Have you never seen this in a piece of music? Try your music library for any volume of Musica Britannica, and many other reference works. But other publishers are now doing some or all of these things, particularly in early music, where the problems increase exponentially the further back you go in time. PRB Productions (California) is one company with all of the above, and lots of others have adopted many good practices. The fact that an edition does not have incipits or introductions does not necessarily mean it is a bad edition, but it will help you in choosing and assessing your purchases.

[Note. Most of Saraband Music's own editions do not have incipits, but this is not because I did not want to do it; more that the music notation program that I use does not allow it. The only way I can manage it is to do it in a separate file, then print, cut and paste it (with scissors and glue) onto the beginning of the piece. SM22 does this, and some future editions too.]

(c) Patrice Connelly, 1999