[MEI-L] Colla parte

Sat Sep 3 12:58:11 CEST 2011

Dear Joachim and all,

Having had the opportunity to look at other parts of der Freischuetz
manuscript, I think one might look at this situation in another way: the
symbols  // or .//., etc. actually indicate to look back at the previous
measure.
Also in the case that described, I am inclined to think that // actually
means a repetition of the instruction col basso to be found in the previous
measure.

Given this interpretation, it is sufficient to define what "col Basso" does,
and the repetition symbols will just copy over the same meaning.
Basically, if col Basso in this context means "play the current measure at
the Basso staff" (which is different from "play the measure with
xml:id='foo'"), the same meaning will be repeated by // in the following
measure.

To define what col Basso does, an element like the one suggested by Perry
might be useful. Perhaps <colla target="#STAFFid">col Basso</colla> or
similar.

Regarding <supplied>, I think we need to clarify better its role and align
it with TEI as much as possible. Perry's use seems a bit incorrect to me,
because the element should be used to supply text that cannot be read or is
not there at all and should be. In this case the symbol is there, the editor
makes its meaning explicit. An element like <colla> that would somehow
include the objections of the people at the back of the room, might be
sufficient to make explicit the meaning of the symbol in question.

Using sic / corr or orig / reg or abbr / expan seems a bit odd to me as
well, because it's not a matter of replacing one (or many) symbol(s) with
another (or many others) for the purpose of correcting, regularizing or
expanding, but it's a matter of making more explicit the meaning of a
less-standard sign.

Hope this helps!

Raffaele

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Roland, Perry (pdr4h) <
pdr4h at eservices.virginia.edu> wrote:

> Hi Joachim,
>
> Let me re-state the issue to see if I understand it correctly --
>
> 1. Weber (is there any other composer worth talking about?) draws some
> version of a slash-symbol-thing to indicate that the current measure should
> be filled in with material from another instrument.
>
> 2. You want to record the original version (with the slash symbol) and give
> its "expansion" (as it were)?
>
> First, are you sure this problem can't be resolved using <orig> and
> <supplied> (or perhaps <reg>)?  For example, each measure of the flute part
> might be encoded --
>
> <measure>
>  <staff n="1">
>    <layer>
>      <choice>
>        <orig> <!-- some repetition sign(s) here --> </orig>
>        <supplied> <!-- a copy of the content of the vln. part -->
> </supplied>
>      </choice>
>    </layer>
>  </staff>
> <dir staff="1" tstamp="1">colla parte ...</dir>
> <!-- instead of the words there might be a <line> -->
> </measure>
>
> This seems like a good solution to me because it is explict.
>
> I'm using <supplied> because the actual substitution doesn't take place in
> the score, there's only an indication that it "ought" to happen. Actually
> making it happen is up to the editor -- the human being, not the software.
>
> Of course, what's missing is a link between the <supplied> element and the
> words "colla ..." (or a "wiggly" line), which I presume is in the flute
> part). At present, the editorial intervention can only be explained in the
> editorialDecl.  But, if we put our heads together, we might be able to think
> of another method of linking these.  (Perhaps with an <annotation>, which
> has pointers to the "participants"; that is, the <supplied> and <dir>
> elements, and a type attribute value of "collaparte"?)
>
> I don't know if you remember, but MEI originally had a different definition
> for <mRpt>.  It didn't necessarily indicate the repetition of the preceding
> measure, but rather the repetition *of any other measure*, "repetition"
> being defined somewhat loosely, of course.  This definition went the way of
> the dodo bird when the editorial elements (add, del, orig, reg, etc.) were
> added since the attribute (don't remember what it was called off the top of
> my head) pointing to the source measure duplicated these editorial elements'
> function.
>
> However, I recognize that there's currently no good way of implementing a
> reference to content given elsewhere in the document.  So, perhaps we should
> consider adding such a specialized element.  In the example above, the
> content of <supplied> would be the <colla> (or some such name) element.
>
> <measure n="1">
>  <staff>
>    <layer>
>      <choice>
>        <orig> <!-- some repetition sign(s) here --> </orig>
>        <supplied> <colla/> </supplied>
>      </choice>
>    </layer>
>  </staff>
> </measure>
>
> Of course, it would need an attribute pointing to the content of the vln.
> part.  In a way, this element would be similar to <ref>, although  <ref> is
> intended for navigation, while <colla> indicates "go get the content and put
> it here."  This is also not unlike internal parsed entities. This element
> would also need to be related to the <dir> or <line> elements. We could
> think about using its generic corresp attribute or give it a new,
> specialized attribute.
>
> (I can already hear some noises in the back of the room about some
> attribute or attributes for describing whatever transformation must be
> applied to the source, such as "transposed up a 5th", "inverted and
> retrograde", etc.  I'm not ready to go there yet!  There be dragons!)
>
> It might also need a more generic name than "colla".  Then it could be used
> for other situations where content given in one location needs to be
> referenced in some other.  Can't think of a good name off the top of my
> head, too late in the day.
>
> Just in case someone asks, I don't think XInclude can point to a location
> in the current document.
>
> Enough to think about for the weekend?  :)
>
> --
> p.
>
> __________________________
> Perry Roland
> Music Library
> University of Virginia
> P. O. Box 400175
> Charlottesville, VA 22904
> 434-982-2702 (w)
> pdr4h (at) virginia (dot) edu
> ________________________________________
> From: mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de [
> mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] on behalf of Joachim Veit [
> veit at weber-gesamtausgabe.de]
> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 3:43 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"/> <!-- here we describe the symbol(s)
> Weber and others use in this case -->
> </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
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uni-paderborn.de/pipermail/mei-l/attachments/20110903/96ca2d26/attachment.html>