I’m currently digitising old, public-domain études that are no longer in print, with a view to making them available to the general public.
Hence my question to the specialists amongst us: how do you deal with the peculiarities of old sheet music when it comes to engraving?
I’m referring to things like inconsistent use of bar lines, obvious errors, etc. Do you reproduce the old notation as it is, or do you modernise the editions without making it obvious?
E.g.: There are passages in 4/4 time where a 5/4 bar slips in without a time signature change. Would you specify the time signatures or omit them as well?
I’d say fix the errors, but an appendix listing the corrections you’ve made is nice to have. Certainly mention the edits somewhere if the choices you’ve made aren’t 100% given. (Should a 5/4 be inserted, or is there maybe a flag missing from two eights in a bar that should be 4/4?)
I’m in agreement with @Rikard – fix the errors with an appendix (or other annotation) describing the edits. Repeating the errors does nothing for those who would use them and, as these are études they are literally for study, possibly bring confusion. OT-Repeating errors is the kind of thing that enables AI hallucinations!
— Jim
…and thanks for preserving - and bringing back - these out-of-print editions!
If you want to produce a result that is really helpful and a positive addition, there are standard procedures for editing old music that you should become familiar with. You could read a book or two, but I think the best way is to look through a lot of recently edited music, often called “urtext edition” which attempt to stay true to the original but correct obvious errors, call attention to potential errors and give solutions to them by means of various annotations like footnotes, or critical notes at the end of the volume.
There are various ways to show within the text itself what is original and what you have added or corrected. This gives the player the last word on what they play.
There is absolutely no point in repeating things that are obvious errors. Publishers are only human, and their editions are not the sacred word of God that must be preserved verbatim.
I would suggest that the same is true for outdated notation conventions, where they would hinder the performer’s reading rather than provide “historically contextual” information. I’m talking about things like placing a dot on the other side of the barline, instead of using a tied note; or C clefs for vocal scores, etc.
Of course, if the inconsistent barlines are actually part of the rhythm of the music, then clearly you would keep them. If you think a regular metre is more useful to the performer, then do that.
Also, the amount of intervention depends on how old the music is. Consider who your audience is, and what they need from your work.
Always catalogue your changes. Dorico’s comments are brilliant for facilitating this – add them in the score, and then you can export the whole list for use in a Critical Commentary.
I would second John’s recommendation for a book on editing.