More thoughts about composer intent and "editting"
Another amateur chiming in here. I agree that composer intent should be carefully considered when making "edits" to any particular piece of music (or any kind of "artwork" for that matter). However, how the composer/creator/artist did it should not be the last word in everything. After all, some instruments came after a composer created their works. Just imagine what somebody like W. A. Mozart could have done with modern, chromatic, brass. But alas, he lived in an age of strings. The fact that he did not write anything for tuba/euphonium/trumpet should not be taken to mean that his work should never be done on one of them.
I also agree with the point that "edits" can make music more accessible for new musicians. Our church's junior band is just ecstatic to play Star Wars, even though none of them have been playing for more than two years. John Williams would be out of their reach otherwise. I guess it comes down to the difference between "making something more accessible," and "dumbing it down". That could be a rather fine line to walk for an arranger.
And when you add Dave's point to all of that (any publication runs the risk of containing typos), it is worth not being too dogmatic about edits. I very much like the way it was handled for the RVW piece. Someone took the initiative to get the composer's blessing on the idea of re-arranging the piece for a different set of instrumentation and/or in a different key. That way, the original composer and their intent is honored, and flexibility is allowed to the extent of the abilities of those that come after.
- Sara
Baritone - 3 Valve, Compensating, JinBao JBBR1240