1 / 28

Digital Philology, or Editing vs. Encoding

Digital Philology, or Editing vs. Encoding. Eleanor Selfridge-Field CCARH, Stanford University www.ccarh.org ; esfield-at-stanford.edu. Greetings. 1. Goals: encoding vs. editing 2. Music encoding at CCARH

maude
Download Presentation

Digital Philology, or Editing vs. Encoding

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Digital Philology, orEditing vs. Encoding Eleanor Selfridge-Field CCARH, Stanford University www.ccarh.org; esfield-at-stanford.edu

  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 Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  3. Digital Philology (Encoding vs Editing) 1. Goals: Editing vs. Encoding

  4. To create a specifically visualinstantiation of a musical work (publishing) To provide suitable material for performance (general) To create an authoritativesource for reference (musicology) Preservation/restorationof materials threatened with deterioration or extinction (librarianship) Purposes of (Analogue) Editing Music Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  5. 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) Purposes of (Digitally) Encoding Music Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  6. 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 Encoding vs Editing: Providers Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  7. 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 Musical vs. textual encoding: Differences Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  8. Digital Philology (Editing vs. Encoding) 3. Digital Philology: Possibilities and Choices

  9. 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) Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  10. Comparison of type-setting details Jeremy Smith in The Virtual Score (Computing in Musicology, 12; 2001) Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  11. Comparison of watermarks Dexter Edge in The Virtual Score (Computing in Musicology, 12; 2001) Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  12. Graphical restoration (augmented graphics) Alejandro Planchart in The Virtual Score (Computing in Musicology, 12; 2001) Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  13. Graphical restoration (DIAMM) A. Wathey, M. Bent, J. Craig-McFeely in The Virtual Score (Computing in Musicology, 12; 2001) Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  14. Digital Philology (Encoding vs. Editing) 4. Choices for Dealing with Variants

  15. Musical variants: A General Typology • More than one Urtext [philologicaldifferences] • More than one medium [performance differences] • More than one performance [interpretativedifferences] • More than one way to indicate particular details [graphicaldifferences] • More than one conceptual idea of the “best” interpretation [intellectualdifferences] Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  16. 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] All occur in print editions, but their handling changes in digitalenvironment. Examples from Händel and from Vivaldi’s Concerti, Op. 8 Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  17. Categorical typologies in encoding music • Composer-specifictypologies - 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? Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  18. Publisher- (editor-) specific issues Chrysander Sadie Burrows Jensen Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  19. Composer- (medium-, style-) specific typologies Alessandro (1726): orchestra Scipione (1726): keyboard Handel graphics from Donald Burrows Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  20. 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) Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  21. Händel: Messiah, Part Two“How beautiful are the feet….” • 5 versions (A-E) varying by • Key • Instrumentation/voicing • Structure Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  22. Händel: Messiah, Part Two“How beautiful are the feet….” Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  23. Händel: Messiah, Part Two“How beautiful are the feet….” Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  24. 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 Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  25. Vivaldi, Concerto Op. 8, No. 11, iii Start here • Autograph (multiple readings • MS parts • Multiple period prints • 5 versions offering • Different lengths • Different challenges …here …or here …here End here …here Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  26. 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 In summary: Encoding vs Editing Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  27. Vivaldi Op. 10, No. 2, Fantasmi Eleanor Selfridge-Field

  28. 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# Eleanor Selfridge-Field

More Related