Missing dynamic, what do I do?
I am working on Piano Concerto no. 21 by Mozart(it is quite normal for me to have 2 or more WIPs).
I am putting the piano notes in first. But there is a problem. I don't know what the dynamic is supposed to be at measure 74 where the piano starts. It is completely missing from the parts sheet music. Since it is Tutti in those 73 measures the piano doesn't play, should I look at for example the violin sheet music at measure 73(or whatever is closest and to the left of measure 73) to determine the dynamic the piano starts with? Or should I look at a different piano sheet music file to determine the dynamic there?
Here is the sheet music I am using for the piano:
http://hz.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/9/99/IMSLP37283-PMLP05554-Pian…
You can see that the starting dynamic is not there at all. There is a forte later on but all the pianos you see in there are referring to the instrument. No starting dynamic at all. Now I won't get to dynamics right now but this is an issue for when I do put in the dynamics(which I only put in after the whole piece is finished for all instruments(or for multi part pieces like this one, when 1 part is complete for all instruments).
So what should I do for this missing dynamic issue?
Comments
I don't know who "Gory" is (the person listed as having transcrbed this), but I think you are better off consulting the actual published sheet music - which surely can also be found on IMSLP - rather than some random person's transcription of it. Who knows how many other errors he might have made.
In reply to I don't know who "Gory" is by Marc Sabatella
The Brekopt Hartel(I am sure I misspelled it) who I trust for orchestra(only mistakes I have seen from them are measure placement and those are easily fixed by cut and paste), does not have the piano part at all. That is a much bigger mistake than a missing dynamic. And I always do orchestral pieces by parts to avoid the changing instrumentation problem(which I commonly see in concertos and romantic period symphonies).
And this isn't in the transcriptions section, this is in the parts section(so instruments are separated but it is made for the original orchestra still. If this were a transcription, it would show up as Piano Solo or 1 piano 4 hands or 2 pianos 4 hands in the transcriptions section and not Piano with other instruments underneath(which is what it actually shows up as).
In reply to The Brekopt Hartel(I am sure by Caters
Well, it says right at the top this is a transcription. In this case, it is a different meaning of the word from the one you presumably have in mind. It means he's making his own copy from a published score, not adapting it for different instruments. In other words, he did the same thing you are doing, but , but doubtless made mistakes along the way. I see quite a few real published scores on IMSLP; you are always goping to be far better off using one of those. Although FWIW, they don't show a dynamic either, so I guess it was missing in those published editions as well.
Also, not sure what you mean about transcribing from parts to avoid "the changing instrumentation problem". Copying from the score and then generating parts is normally going to lead to *far* fewer errors, plus it is going to be many times faster because you can see the parts togheter, easily copy & paste, etc. Although I guess it is a drag that some of the older editions don't list instrument names on each system, so keeping track of where you are is a biit harder than it would be on a modern edition.
In reply to Well, it says right at the by Marc Sabatella
I mean for example it might show all the instruments on the first group of staves but in the second group of staves it shows only 4 and doesn't say which staff corresponds to which instrument. That is a problem and so I always go to the parts section for this reason when it comes to orchestral pieces.
And whenever I search for transcriptions, I always get an adapted version of the piece(usually for piano).
In reply to I mean for example it might by Caters
Yes, as I said, older scores might be missing instrument names. Modern scores should show them, however. It could be worth your while to seek one out; it should simplify the process greatly and lead to faster and better results.
As I said, the word "transcription" has two different meanings. You are referring to the version that means "a re-arrangement for different instruments". I simply mean, this is not actual published music, but some random stranger from the Internet who did what you are also doing: looking at music and entering it into notation software himself. He is prsumably not a professional and we have no way of knowing if he is any good at it. With so many actual published scores available, I can't imagine why you'd invest effort copying some random stranger's transcription - which is of unknown quality - rather than an actual published score.
You need to look at the original, not someone else's transcription of it. On the IMSLP page containing the version from which you are working, Mozart's original MS of that piece is available. Here is a link to the first movement (the second and third movements are listed just below it): http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/388366
This is a big download, but if you want to produce a worthwhile, authoritative edition of this concerto, you must start with authoritative source material. Many (if not most) of the late 19th and early 20th century editions of these works are highly flawed, even those published by 'big name' publishing houses. The standards of musicological scholarship were not high throughout most of that period.
PS--Be aware that you WILL find errors in the original MS, too. Composers--especially prolific ones such as Mozart and Handel--worked very, very quickly, and didn't spend much time on proofreading. Your job, as editor of the edition you are creating, will be to correct those errors using knowledge of music theory and music history and performance practise, among other things.
In reply to You need to look at the by Recorder485
Yeah. Like with Brekopt Hartel, I will need to know "Okay the grand pause is here and this major sequence is here. With those notes that early(or late), I need to cut and paste it x measures forward or backward so that everything ends at those grand pauses in sync."
But there is yet another problem with going for the old versions besides unknown instrumentation change. That is readability. I mean just try sight reading one of Vivaldi's sonatas on IMSLP. It is almost impossible. You can't tell if it is eighths or sixteenths, double wholes or wholes, etc. This is a major issue since 1 note duration off can make the whole piece dissonant and well, wrong.
So yeah, that is another reason I don't use the old, more authoritative versions is the readability issue. So I instead rely on the more readable versions and if I notice an error before I listen(like with Brekopt Hartel Symphony no. 5 by Beethoven) or when I listen. I try to correct the error like this:
1) Check notes(Sometimes clefs confuse me and I put in the wrong note or the editor put in the wrong note(though this is usually my fault))
2) Check note duration(This is especially true for pieces of which I can't find a modern version on IMSLP)
3) Check instrumentation(Sometimes I accidentally put the right note on the wrong instrument)
4) Check key
5) Check tempo(Sometimes like with Nocturne in E flat by Chopin, the tempo is written way faster than it is supposed to be played so in this example I might have to slow it down all the way to Lento from the original tempo)
6) Check repeats(Sometimes an editor puts a repeat in the wrong place for certain instruments but not others)
If nothing else works, Cut and paste or find a different but still modern version.
In reply to Yeah. Like with Brekopt by Caters
Not at all; I do that sort of thing all the time, and so does any professional editor working with this repertoire. It is a matter of training one's eye, but also of knowing how music is written. If a group of notes is so sloppily written that it's unclear if they're 16ths or 8ths, context (in other words, what's in the rest of that measure? Do the arithmatic...) will give you the answer 99% of the time.
There are certain copyists and composers who are notorious for the illegibility of their MSS; Pisendel is one of the worst. But people manage, with care and study and patience, to decipher even things like this:
As to the 'disappearing instruments' in the score, this is done to save space and the copyist's or engraver's time. When an instrument does not play for one or more systems, its staff is often dropped until it reappears later in the piece. It's not that hard to figure out what's showing on any particular page; the ordering of the staves will not change, and there's no mistaking a violin part for, say, a clarinet or horn part.
Be grateful you've even got a score to work with; in the Baroque period it was common for the composer to do his working drafts in score form, but the score itself was not always published or copied out; only the parts. The sketchbooks didn't always survive, so today's editors need to assemble a score from the parts, which, for quite a few works, are all that comes down to us over the last 250-300 years.
It is also not uncommon to find that several of the parts don't match in overall length, so the error has to be identified (it's usually an incorrect number of rests or single-measure repeats, or a duplicated or skipped measure or phrase) and corrected. Remember that much early music did not include bar numbers, so one of the first things you need to do is go through each part with a pencil and number each measure sequentially. (Be careful not to make errors of your own in doing this!)
To return to your original question, comprehensive dynamic markings were a relatively newish idea in the classical period; most Baroque composers included them only rarely, and it wouldn't surprise me if Mozart didn't bother with one for the first entry of the solo instrument in an allegro unless he intended something distinctly unusual (and Mozart didn't often do that sort of thing). The soloist would know what was implied. So download that autograph MS and see what Mozart actually wrote. If there's no dynamic for the piano there, analyse the rest of the score and how it's marked and figure out what dynamic the pianist would have to play on a modern instrument (unless you happen to have a forte-piano upon which you are planning to perform this) to be heard properly at m.73. Then put in your own dynamic mark in brackets [ mf ] to indicate that it is an editorial addition and does not appear in the original.