[MEI-L] half-measure repeats; Colla parte

Sat Sep 3 01:38:42 CEST 2011

Dear Joachim, Perry, et al.,

In our experience with other composers, it is best not to predict how much
of a measure/measures a repeat will pertain to. We too try to encode
exactly what is in the visual source, reserving alterations for separate
"edition" files. 

In slightly earlier music, the "da capo" starting point (that is, the
point to which one returns from later in the movement) can be affected by
the metrical position of the main material, but it can also be influenced
by individual scribal and/or print styles. If, for example, the first note
of the original is a pick-up beat, the "da capo point" will in some cases
be at the first note, in others at the first barline, and in still others
elsewhere in the movement. That usually depends on whether there is
another section after the second repeat (which in turn often allows for
divergent numbers of beats in first endings). 

Too often, This all becomes a case of circular logic: if the first ending
consists of a complete measure, and the opening of the movement begins on
a downbeat, there is no problem. But that seems to be more the exception
than the usual situation. 

Half-measure repeats, on the other hand, may give a foretaste of some of
the notations that may occur as one moves into the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries. Perhaps there are repertories where a
systematic approach on this particular point will work. 

"<supplied>" retains some flexibility. Does MEI preclude the discrete use
of both?

==

"colla parte" seems straightforward as an annotation, but in the
realization phase, there can be choices, ambiguity, and uncertainty. In
the case of Vivaldi manuscripts, for example, "colla parte" found
simultaneously in second violin, viola, and sometimes violoncello parts
can mean "play notes with the same pitch names in whatever range [octave]
suits your instrument." Equally common are passages with a single violin
part and blank staves for second violin, viola, and cello/basso continuo.
This does not necessarily mean that colla parte realization is intended to
ALL the parts, but [to judge from fully scripted works] it is likely that
one or more of them should be providing some kind of accompaniment to the
violin. 

To interface these situations to MEI may only require a clear
differentiation of source-content from modern interpretation, but it is
important to realize that these kinds of passages can go on for entire
movements and can occur an every movement of the work, so there is no
incontrovertible clue to exactly what the composer had in mind for this
work.

Eleanor

Eleanor Selfridge-Field
Consulting Professor
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-3076, USA
http://www.stanford.edu/~esfield/
http://www.ccarh.org

-----Original Message-----
From: mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de
[mailto:mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] On Behalf Of Joachim Veit
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 12:44 PM
To: mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
Subject: [MEI-L] Colla parte

Dear MEI-L-Readers,

when encoding manuscripts MEI has the possibility to encode
measure-repeats or half-measure-repeats which are found in the original
manuscripts in a form similar to: // or .//.  (two strokes through the
barlines or something similar) with <mrpt> or <halfmrpt>. This has always
a clear reference to the bar (or half-bar) before.

The same symbols are used in manuscripts in combination with the "col
Basso" or other "colla-parte"-instructions.
Again in Weber's Freischuetz-Overture (we never do something other...) we
have a contrabbasso with <staff n="16"> and above this the violoncello
with <staff n="15>. Weber notates the contrabbasso in a normal way and in
the cello-staff we find only "c. B." (= bar 1) and 
afterwards //   //    // etc.
For a modern edition we could label the layer of the contrabbasso with an
xml:id="2011" and put in the layer of staff 15: <layer n="1" 
copyof="2011"/>.

But in this case we want to encode the "original" situation! So we first
have to define in the scoredef:
<scoredef>....
<symboltable>
<symboldef xml:id="symCollaParte"/>  </symboltable> </scoredef>

and within our staff 15:
<staff n="15">
<layer n="1">
<symbol ref="symCollaParte"/>
</layer>
</staff>
In this case the reference is not always clear: it might go to the staff
below (as in this case) or the staff above (if the cello is written out
and the cb-staff is pointing to the cello) or even from a flute to the
first violin 5 systems below. So there should be some mechanism to make
clear where the model is situated. And second: We should have the
possibility to use "c. B." (or something similar) as a symbol-phrase
(which at the same time "defines" the model) and for the following bars
simply use "//" (or something similar) (maybe even one symbol for 2-3 bars
together??).
Is this case already considered in the future guidelines?

Best greetings and a happy weekend,
Joachim