Digital Philology, or Editing vs. Encoding
description
Transcript of Digital Philology, or Editing vs. Encoding
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