Editorial slurs & ties - modern accepted convention
I know this is a bit esoteric but...
One broadly accepted standard for an editorially added slur (or tie), is not to use a dotted or dashed line, but to use a normal unbroken line but with a small vertical line through it. (see Caldwell 'Editing Early Music', Oxford 1995). Example attached, from an old Reddit discussion on the subject.
It would be good to add this to the range of alternative slurs & ties available https://musescore.org/en/handbook/3/slurs#dotted, given that this type of slur is fairly standard practice.
A workaround would be to add a separate line manually, but then when things move around, I don't know a way of 'locking' them together in a group.
Thanks
Edward
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| o3psxvtcdp221.jpg | 799.05 KB |
Comments
+1
And for an industry comparison, see the beautiful documentation for Dorico's Slur styles:
https://steinberg.help/dorico/v1/en/dorico/topics/notation_reference/no…
In reply to +1 And for an industry… by DanielR
For my own education....why add a slur that isn't in the original score?
FWIW, Sibelius doesn't have this. I don't think Finale does, either.
In reply to For my own education....why… by bobjp
"why add a slur that isn't in the original score?"
An editor may decide to add a slur where the original manuscript full score has a slur for all instruments except one - which might have been an oversight by the composer. Like this example of a woodwind section:
![Manuscript_woodwind_section.jpg]( "Manuscript_woodwind_section.jpg")
In reply to "why add a slur that isn't… by DanielR
I understand the concept.
But look at this score. The composer was extremely detailed with every other marking. Crescendos with all the dashes after in all five parts. Meticulous dynamics and hairpins. As well as rests for both voices in the first three measures in the top staff. And he just forgot to mark that measure? Is the missing thing a slur or a phrase marking? Open to interpretation with that Marcato marking. Notice what is a bit different about the notes in this measure. They are an octave down from the part above. Which are marked as you want. But as the only voice in that range, maybe the composer wanted those 16ths to stand out. He wrote that melody that way for a reason. Is it correct to just slur it all together? Yes, I know the editor is only suggesting something not in the original score. Editors have always done that. And not worried about if it was supposed to be there or not.
I know composers who make a big deal about "Composers' Intent". They want everything just the way they write it. No matter how impractical it might be.
He didn't put whole measure rests in either. Are you going to add them in some way and show they weren't in the original, also?
I'm not sure a slur is quite as clear cut in this case as you might think.
And then there is the player. Who may play it the way he wants regardless of how it's marked.
In reply to I understand the concept… by bobjp
A fair point, but in music from an earlier age, it's the editor's job to spot things which are likely to be printer's errors, and make suggestions for consistency. An example attached. Editorial slur for the 2nd violin makes sense here.
In reply to A fair point, but in music… by nedkershaw
Agreed ( although it would be nice to see the original). This example deals with bowing. The other example is not so clear cut
In reply to +1 And for an industry… by DanielR
Thanks for this. They've really thought about it!