IMSLP Forums

I had I discussion about this with KGill. Werner Jaksch had uploaded a first edition of 6 Cellosonatas of Platti
with a Cembalo Score and the parts for Violoncello solo and the bass. These two constitues the manuscript,
in addition there are a few numbers for the figured bass. Now Jaksch finds his Cembalo Score under the title "Arrangement".
If this were true, nearly all baroque compositions were arrangements, because mostly there are no two-line cembalo parts
in the material. Moreover this would have consequences for copyright questions. Any comments?

It's my opinion that a continuo realization written into a score is basically an attempt to record what would otherwise be an improvisation—although very few of the realizations printed in any score are remotely worthwhile, it's closer to an original composition when done correctly, and thus even the block-chord realizations that we see most of the time (better than the over-florid ones!) are not arrangements but something more original.
How's that for an overwrought sentence.

It's arrangement, Jim, but not as we know it.

P—

That's probably a better way to word it

If we are going to call continuo realisation “arrangement” then we need to re-classify every single vocal score on the website.

Get busy people!

P—

EDITED TO ADD: Facetiousness aside, it looks as though the page has been edited appropriately — keyboard realisation of continuo is obviously deserving of an arranger’s tag for the editor concerned, but it doesn’t involve a new or different arrangement from the intention of the composer, who expected someone—transcriber or performer—to do the work.

Notenschreiber wrote:Moreover this would have consequences for copyright questions

Realizations are usually covered by copyright, so yes, there are definitely copyright consequences. In legalese, I think most legislation refers to it as an "adaptation", but for our purposes it is either "realization" or "arrangement".

Carolus (I think) made the comment that if a realization is so rudimentary that a first-year college student could have done it, it probably wouldn't be considered original enough to get copyright protection, but the good ones are definitely covered. (And I'm not sure I would risk testing the wrath of someone who thought his work was good enough to be copyrighted by considering it public domain -- I tend to treat all realizations as under copyright.)

As to terminology, I personally prefer "realization", but the site has not been set up to make the distinction. Given what has been uploaded from SLUB Dresden over the last year or so, I would bet that the vast majority of our Baroque works are still in manuscript form, so the problem of what to call it probably doesn't apply to most of the Baroque works here.

This might be considered for a future project, but in the short term, in order to get the arranger/realizer credited, the arrangements hierarchy will do that job.

@PML. But there are a lot of works with new continuo realizitions by Jaksch without that he is being called "arranger".
(Look at the category "Reichenauer" for example.) To make a modern edition from a baroque compostion
should involve the realization of the continuo. This is not the task of an arranger, but of an editor.
Greetings Notenschreiber

I don't know about "should"—I, like almost every other harpsichordist, absolutely despise reading from scores with realizations.

Especially baroque music is often played by amateurs, and the publishers want to sell as many exemplars as
possible. Two good reasons to add a realization.

Notenschreiber wrote:But there are a lot of works with new continuo realizitions by Jaksch without that he is being called "arranger".

That doesn't necessarily mean that the other pages are correct. And I think we're obfuscating the issue a bit by bringing up whether or not modern scores should include continuo realizations in the first place, and whether it is the job of the 'editor' or a separate 'arranger' to provide said realization. An arrangement is a transformation of the original scoring of a work; it is distinguished from a mere transcription by the actual addition, subtraction and/or otherwise modification of notes in order to fit the new forces. The original work in this case is for solo cello and a one-line figured bass. Werner Jaksch transformed the figured bass into a full keyboard part, adding an entire line above the original in order to fit the keyboardist's two hands. Whether the job was done on the spot back in the day (and still can be by those with the proper training and practice) is not the issue: it is an arrangement, and while I'm not sure it should actually go under a standard arrangements hierarchy (using subheadings), it should be marked as such.

I'm going to have to disagree. Continuo realization is putting forth one performance possibility—the lines already existed in the music, and are integral to it. A continuo aria is not being performed without the keyboard player's right hand. Thus, a realization is something distinct from an arrangement.

Whether Jaksch is credited with the arranger tag is a red herring — continuo realisation partakes of the flavour of arrangement even though it doesn’t transform the original instrumental designation of the work. We haven’t — as a historical practice on IMSLP — treated these as de jure arrangements, and allowed the full scores and continuo part scores that include them to exist under the composer’s direct by-line without qualifying this as the work of two composers — the originator of the work, and the editor who has completed the work.

It’s thus one of several “arrangement” tasks associated with musical performance that we don’t fully credit as de jure arrangements, which would then be relegated to a different part of a work page entitled “Arrangements and Transcriptions”. The category of works known as vocal scores are the palmary example of this: for works intended for large ensembles they represent a stage of rehearsal practice that is rarely presented as a performance in itself (i.e. singers and keyboard instrument, rather than singers and the instrumental ensemble designated by the composer), and so would seem even less suitable as a representation of the musical work than a continuo part, which might actually be utilised as is in a performance.

What other arrangements might we have that wouldn’t qualify as “Arrangements” in capital letters: realisations of jazz cue sheets?

Cheers, PML

pml wrote:Whether Jaksch is credited with the arranger tag is a red herring

It is also slightly a moot point at this stage, since we don't have the set up to distinguish between the two. I think it will have to be sufficient for now that it has been brought up and will be on a list of potential projects. But please also bear in mind that this might not be the item on the list with the highest priority. Others I can think of are the translators (currently languages are supposed to only be tagged if they are original to the composer's original work, but there is no way to get the piece to come up in a language list if it isn't tagged as original), and the orchestrations (many, many orchestral works have to be downloaded to see what instruments are needed).

Would anyone here object to treating the persons "realizing" the continuo part as editors, rather than arrangers? So the scores wouldn't appear under "Arrangements and Transcriptions", but the realization would still be recognised as having significance for copyright purposes.

This seems to me to be off-topic, but I think the answer is yes there would be some form of objection to this proposal, because of the distinction that some editorial tasks do require the exercise of creativity and originality, which are normally the preserve of composers, and those of us who are occasionally inclined to employ originality in these tasks should be entitled to be credited for it: at least in some instances, the use of the {{LinkArr}} and {{LinkEd}} templates may also have been somewhat calculated to distinguish between non-trivial and trivial instances of editorial input rather than the display of originality.

Best regards, Philip