[MEI-L] Colla parte
Joachim Veit
veit at weber-gesamtausgabe.de
Tue Sep 6 22:38:59 CEST 2011
Dear Eleanor, Perry and Raffaele,
thanks a lot for this helpful discussion (or the beginning of a
discussion for release 2013/05 ?)
<quote resp="Perry">"Enough to think about for the weekend?"</quote>
Perry, you see that this was for more than one weekend ;-) , and please
excuse the late answer.
1. First I think that for the first we can live with your proposal of
using <choice> together with orig/reg or abbr/expan.
For a longer term we should, maybe, prefer to have your <ggsapih>
("go-get-something-and-put-it-here") or something generic - not <copyOf>
but something in Raffaele's sense: <goCopy> (go and copy the measure below).
Concerning <reg> and <expan> I normally understand them as giving the
"resolved abbreviation" in the form a "today's user" is used to, e.g. a
fully expanded form of a half note with a stroke through the stem (as a
mark for repetition of four eighth-notes). But in the context of the
manuscript "//" as a colla-parte-sign may signal that you "go and copy
the measure below" and that measure may consist of two half notes with
strokes through the stem - and this has nothing to do with expansion or
regularization. Thus I think that the solution is ok for the next
release but not a fully satisfying one?
2. Concerning Raffaele's hint that the double lines // (or something
similar) have to be seen in conjunction with the "c.B." <quote
resp:"Raffaele">"if col Basso ... means 'play the current measure at the
Basso staff' ..., the same meaning will be repeated by // in the
following measure</quote> struck me at the first reading as a totally
convincing interpretation of the "//" signs. But returning to the
manuscript I begin to be a doubting Thomas again. Please haave a lookt
at:
http://digital.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/dms/werkansicht/?PPN=PPN65499935X&PHYSID=PHYS_0064
There you find "col Tenore" and "col Basso" (bottom-middle) and the
strokes // are beneath these words - so they are not a repetition sign
here. And differing from the measure-repeats in the last bars of this
page in violins and violas (staff 7-9 from top) we find the next hints
in the chorus staffs (no. 2-3 from bottom) as double lines // crossing
the bar line (that is continued on the next page). And as a further
motive we have the "unis:[ono] in line 5 from top (middle)", again with
a //-sign. (Besides: the // in b. 3/4 of the flute - staff 1 from top -
are a repetition sign for bars 1/2 on this page) - so the "//" has very
different meanings here, but always have something to to with "repetion".
In the case of "colla parte", "in 8va", "col Basso", "unisono" etc. it
is not necessary that this verbal "prescription" is explicit: Look at:
bibliothek-berlin.de/dms/werkansicht/?PPN=PPN65499935X&PHYSID=PHYS_0025&USE=800
In the cello-staff there is only "//" without any "c.B." (and I think
that Eleanor hinted at the fact that this form is often to be found with
other composers - but you know that I am only acquainted with this
strange Weber.... :-[ ). So we really have to be careful what we define
in the header as the symbols used combined with their "meaning".
3. As soon as we connect "//" with any form of meaning we are
interpreting the signs (and behave as editors - even if we add "col
Basso" where we only find //). And Eleanor's examples show that in many
cases there is a lot of wiggle-room here! But if we continue the work
of encoding the manuscript of the Freischuetz-overture I think we should
differentiate at least between a <symboldef> of "//" that denotes pure
measure (or half-measure) repeats (and are normally used quite strictly:
as repetition signs in each measure or at least on the bar-lines if
meant for a 2-measure-unit) and those which show a "freer distribution",
but at least in Weber's case are preferably used as sign "on a bar-line"
for the <goCopy>-mechanism?
Nevertheless a generic element with the function of "go and bring
something from another bar here in this place" would really be of some
advantage!?
I hope that this makes the discussion not too confusing - but that seems
to be my special part at the moment ;-) .
Best greetings,
Joachim
Am 03.09.11 18:56, schrieb Raffaele Viglianti:
> Hi Perry,
>
>
> isn't "making more explicit" the meaning of something exactly
> what correcting, regularizing and expanding do? For instance, if
> I mark "P.R." as an abbreviation and "Perry Roland" as its
> expansion, am I not making the meaning of "P.R." more explicit?
>
>
> I think that in this case, the act of "making explicit" is suggesting
> a textual replacement:
> P.R. --> Perry Roland
>
> and this is true for all the paired choices of sic/corr, orig/reg,
> etc. This is an editorial intervention that directly influences the
> symbols that make the text.
>
> In the case of col Basso, the act of "making explicit" is defining a
> function:
> "col Basso" --> go and copy the measure below
>
> This is why I don't think that there is any editorial intervention
> here, it is a matter of explaining what this symbol "is". (Let's set
> aside the fact that arguably, when doing a transcription, everything
> is editorial interpretation; even using <note>)
>
> the words "col Basso" (or the wiggly line, whatever) remain
> separate from the realization encoding. To do otherwise, would
> wreak havoc upon the distinction between events and control events
> that's built into MEI. Unless someone WANTS to start over from
> scratch. :)
>
>
> Ok, I understand and agree, sorry if I jumped to suggesting a new
> element too fast! :) Still, I think that the direction "col Basso"
> itself is functioning as a hypothetical "copyOf" element rather than
> its editorial expansion. But if the direction and its function must be
> kept separated to follow the event / control event distinction, then
> fine. What I think should be evident from the encoding, though, is
> that this falls out of editorial interventions, and falls into the
> category of saying what some text "is", which is what happens with a
> lot of MEI elements (this is a note, this is a direction, ...).
>
> Best,
> Raffaele
>
>
> BUT, what the content of <expan> or <reg> should be is a different
> question. In the examples above and in the examples in the TEI
> guidelines, the content is explicitly stated; that is, every
> misspelling of the same word carries the same regularization.
>
> For those situations where the regularization exists elsewhere in
> the encoding, we could create a generic,
> "go-get-something-and-put-it-here" element. I only suggested the
> name "colla" as a discussion-starter. I believe it probably needs
> a more generic name, perhaps "copyOf", that would allow it to
> function in cases other than just colla parte. Eleanor's point
> about references occuring just about anywhere is correct, although
> there's only so far we can go and maintain explicit markup.
> Followed to the extreme, the markup becomes entirely procedural,
> not a good thing. Already, the <copyOf> element introduces the
> same problems @copyof, namely, which parts of the target should
> actually be copied -- certainly not the target's @xml:id and
> probably not it's @n either.
>
> For the time being, I'd prefer solutions such as those above that
> use existing elements / attributes in order not to delay the next
> release. We can take up the question of a "copyOf" element and
> the philosophical issues related to what a regularization "really"
> is later.
>
> --
> p.
>
> __________________________
> Perry Roland
> Music Library
> University of Virginia
> P. O. Box 400175
> Charlottesville, VA 22904
> 434-982-2702 <tel:434-982-2702> (w)
> pdr4h (at) virginia (dot) edu
>
>
>
> From: mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> <mailto:mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de>
> [mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> <mailto:mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de>] on behalf of
> Raffaele Viglianti [raffaeleviglianti at gmail.com
> <mailto:raffaeleviglianti at gmail.com>]
> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 6:58 AM
> To: Music Encoding Initiative
> Subject: Re: [MEI-L] Colla parte
>
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <tel:434-982-2702> (w)
> pdr4h (at) virginia (dot) edu
> ________________________________________
> From: mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> <mailto:mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de>
> [mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> <mailto:mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de>] on behalf of
> Joachim Veit [veit at weber-gesamtausgabe.de
> <mailto:veit at weber-gesamtausgabe.de>]
> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 3:43 PM
> To: mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de <mailto: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 <mailto:mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de>
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de <mailto:mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de>
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
-------------- n?chster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit HTML-Daten wurde abgetrennt...
URL: <http://lists.uni-paderborn.de/pipermail/mei-l/attachments/20110906/4b0a7850/attachment.html>
-------------- n?chster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit Bin?rdaten wurde abgetrennt...
Dateiname : veit.vcf
Dateityp : text/x-vcard
Dateigr??e : 364 bytes
Beschreibung: nicht verf?gbar
URL : <http://lists.uni-paderborn.de/pipermail/mei-l/attachments/20110906/4b0a7850/attachment.vcf>
More information about the mei-l
mailing list