Eleanor Selfridge-FieldCCARH, Stanford University

www.ccarh.org; esfield-at-stanford.edu

Digital Philology, or Editing vs. Encoding

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 2

Greetings

1. Goals: encoding vs. editing 2. Music encoding at CCARH [Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities, Stanford University]

3. Digital philology: Possibilities and choices 4. Variants: A categorical view Coda: Realities of online distribution

1. Goals: Editing vs. Encoding

Digital Philology (Encoding vs Editing)

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 4

Purposes of (Analogue) Editing Music

To create a specifically visual instantiation of a musical work (publishing)

To provide suitable material for performance (general) To create an authoritative source for reference (musicology) Preservation/restoration of materials threatened with

deterioration or extinction (librarianship)

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 5

Purposes of (Digitally) Encoding Music

To create a specifically visual instantiation of a musical work For publishing For performance

To create a virtual source for future editions (musicology) for musical analysis (music theory) for classroom use (music pedagogy) for data conversion (extensible uses of one data set)

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 6

Encoding vs Editing: Providers

Digital editing Selection of sources Determination of purposes

to be served Selection of encoding

system Determination of

distribution system(s)

Manual editing Selection of editor(s)

Selection of sources Determination of editorial

principles

Selection of publisher Selection of methods of production Determination of distribution system

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 8

Musical vs. textual encoding: Differences

Text Concerned exclusively

with written instantiations Sound instantiations not

supported Monophonic in nature Mono-directional

Music Concerned inclusively

with written instantiations Sound instantiations

supported (bilaterally) Polyphonic in nature Multidirectional

3. Digital Philology:

Possibilities and Choices

Digital Philology (Editing vs. Encoding)

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 10

Possibilities in digital editing (data level)

Comparison of details from multiple sources Restoration of details from an earlier source Virtual realizations [sound] of alternative

readings

Vivaldi Op. 3, No. 5

Violin Concerto A Minor

Inputs:Le Cene edn. (strings)

Dawson book (keyboard)

Outputs:Dover edn. (score)

MuseData (parts)

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 12

Comparison of type-setting details

Jeremy Smith in The Virtual Score (Computing in Musicology, 12; 2001)

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 13

Comparison of watermarks

Dexter Edge in The Virtual Score (Computing in Musicology, 12; 2001)

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 14

Graphical restoration (augmented graphics)

Alejandro Planchart in The Virtual Score (Computing in Musicology, 12; 2001)

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 15

Graphical restoration (DIAMM)

A. Wathey, M. Bent, J. Craig-McFeely in The Virtual Score (Computing in Musicology, 12; 2001)

4. Choices for Dealing with Variants

Digital Philology (Encoding vs. Editing)

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 17

Musical variants: A General Typology

More than one Urtext [philological differences] More than one medium [performance differences] More than one performance [interpretative differences] More than one way to indicate particular details

[graphical differences] More than one conceptual idea of the “best” interpretation

[intellectual differences]

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 18

Musical variants: A General Typology

More than one Urtext [philological differences] More than one medium [performance differences] More than one performance [interpretative differences] More than one way to indicate particular details

[graphical differences] More than one conceptual idea of the “best” interpretation [intellectual

differences]

Examples from Händel and from

Vivaldi’s Concerti, Op. 8

All occur in print editions, but their handling changes in digital environment.

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 19

Categorical typologies in encoding music

Composer-specific typologies - Legibility

- “intentions”

Publisher-specific typologies Renaming of work (composer) Transposition of key, reordering of movements (works) Modifications to basso continuo

Medium-specific typologies (e.g. orchestral works vs. operas)

Largely specific to music?

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 20

Publisher- (editor-) specific issues

1. Chrysander

2. Sadie

3. Burrows

4. Jensen

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 21

Composer- (medium-, style-) specific typologies

Alessandro (1726): orchestra Scipione (1726): keyboard

Handel graphics from Donald Burrows

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 24

Form/content-specific issues

Note-level variants (single items)

Note names, inflections (C/C#) Durational value Ornamentation

Phrase-level variants (horizontal view)

8va readings

Part-level variants (texture, performance)

Violin and oboe vs Violin or oboe

Harmonization variants (vertical view) discrepant continuo figuration

Divergent readings of formal structure (tree-structure variants)

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 25

Händel: Messiah, Part Two“How beautiful are the feet….”

5 versions (A-E) varying by• Key

• Instrumentation/voicing

• Structure

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 26

Händel: Messiah, Part Two“How beautiful are the feet….”

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 27

Händel: Messiah, Part Two“How beautiful are the feet….”

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 28

Vivaldi’s Concerti Op. 8 (1725): 3 Examples

Op. 8, No. 7—tree-structure variants (two) of Movement 1 Fairly simple substitution

Op. 8, No. 9—tree-structure variants (different solo instruments) Violin/oboe

Op. 8, No. 11—complex group of variants (six?) producing movements of different length and difficulty for Movement 3

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 30

Vivaldi, Concerto Op. 8, No. 11, iii

• Autograph (multiple readings

• MS parts

• Multiple period prints

5 versions offering

• Different lengths

• Different challenges

Start here

End here…here

…here

…here

…or here

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 31

In summary: Encoding vs Editing

Purposes of encoding Application-neutral with

possibilities for visual, audio, pedagogical, conceptual, and intellectual study

Reasons for encoding Improvement of access to

materials Enhancement of value of

materials

Purposes of editing Application-specific with

emphasis on visual and intellectual content

Reasons for editing Improvement of access to

materials Enhancement of value of materials

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 34

Vivaldi Op. 10, No. 2, Fantasmi

New opportunities

Online facsimilies

DIAMM: http://www.diamm.ac.uk/publications.html#N11778 British Library: http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/musicmanu/

All-in-one collections of variants http://www.dimused.uni-tuebingen.de/tuebingen_phase2_e.php EDIrom: http://www.gridtalk.org/Documents/Grids-and-eHumanities.pdf

Thematic-comparison sites http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/MMDB/Feasts/l14020200.htm

Virtual-edition sites (CMME) http://cmme.org/?page=database&view=projects&num=4

http://cmme.org/?page=database&view=pieces&id=120#

2006 Paderborn; rev. 2010 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 36