Content uploaded by Rachel Elizabeth Scott
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rachel Elizabeth Scott on Mar 28, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
The Edition-Literate Singer: Edition Selection as an Information Literacy Competency
RUNNING HEAD: The Edition-Literate Singer
ABSTRACT: Many young singers are unaware that the edition of a piece they select may differ
greatly from a different edition of the same piece. The proliferation of free and easily accessible
public domain scores online has complicated the process of selection and has favored
convenience over quality. This article explains how the evaluation of scores is a valid
information literacy competency and details steps that music librarians can take to promote
evaluation of editions among undergraduate vocal music majors.
KEYWORDS: Information literacy, singers, music scores
Undergraduate voice students are not taught to think critically about music scores as
sources of information. Young singers are often unfamiliar with the pieces given to them by
their voice teachers; being handed a photocopy with no composer or work information, and
without any editor information, decontexualizes the piece and greatly disserves the performer.
When required to track down an unknown piece for a diction or vocal repertoire assignment, the
student typically accepts the first available match. After searching the song title in the OPAC--
hopefully the table of contents has been indexed--the singer writes down a call number or two
and pulls a score. The problem arises when the piece has been authoritatively edited and the
accompaniment, text, or vocal part differs from the scholarly or critical edition. Most
undergraduate singers would not think to compare all of the versions available to them, nor
would they track down the appropriate volume of the collected edition to read the editor's notes
and better understand the composer’s intent.
2
This scenario assumes that the undergraduate in question starts her search in the library,
which is not always the case. The proliferation of public domain scores online means that the
library is increasingly missing from the equation. Instead, students frequently choose ease of
access over quality in the selection of scores. Singers also choose convenience and cost over
quality in their preference for anthologies. They grow accustomed to anthologies compiled
according to voice type in part because so much of their repertoire is from larger works. It is
much less expensive to buy an oratorio anthology than to purchase each of the works excerpted
therein. However, removing these pieces from the context of the larger work does not allow the
singer to get a sense of the composer’s style or the role of the excerpt within the opera, oratorio
or song cycle. While a discussion of edition selection may be better suited to the studio or
classroom, music librarians are uniquely equipped to promote the evaluation of editions among
students. The question, then, is how we can we leverage the rich reference sources in our
collections and the current institutional support for information literacy programs to engage
undergraduate music majors in a discussion about selecting the best possible sources for their
performances.
The importance of information literacy in undergraduate music programs is well-
documented. The current set of Information Literacy Instructional Objectives for
Undergraduate Music Students1 was prepared by the Music Library Association (MLA)
Bibliographic Instruction Subcommittee and received the endorsement of both the Association of
College & Research Libraries (ACRL) and the MLA in 2005. These objectives, however, owe
much to earlier documents, including the Bibliographic Competencies for Music Students at an
Undergraduate Level (1984) by the Bibliographic Instruction Subcommittee of the Midwest
Chapter of MLA and Objectives for Information Literacy Instruction: A Model Statement for
3
Academic Librarians (2001) by the ACRL. The 2005 Objectives reiterate ACRL’s definition of
information literacy: “To be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when
information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed
information.”2 Music students must recognize when they need a particular score, find and access
it, evaluate its appropriateness, accuracy, and authenticity, and use it effectively.
In 1996, Amanda Maple, Beth Christensen, and Kathleen Abromeit noted that
information literacy not only enhances academic performance, but also enriches musical
performance: “Information literacy informs more than scholarship for music students; it
promotes success in performance as well...they know how to evaluate critically a printed music
edition.”3 This capability to enrich performance is the real hook. In my experience as a music
student and performer, vocal performance students more readily engage with their repertoire than
with assignments for music history courses. However, connecting information literacy to
performance presents a challenge to music librarians because most music library instruction at
the undergraduate level is tied to music history or musicology coursework instead of the vocal
studio or seminar setting. Accordingly, the research assignments are often generally
biographical or historical in nature and not connected to the student’s repertoire. Indeed, it is
generally in a graduate music bibliography or research methods course that many performance
students are first taught to compare multiple arrangements and editions, to consult collected
editions and historical sets, and to read about the editorial processes involved in preparing a
critical edition. Unfortunately, most undergraduate music programs do not include such a
course.
Ruth Watanabe has found that performers enjoy using bibliographical tools like thematic
catalogs and collected editions, because they are so integral to the performer’s repertoire.
4
Students have a great sense of accomplishment after investing so much energy in researching the
repertoire and frequently ask, “Why couldn’t we have been taught this long ago?”4 Not only do
these tools help students prepare excellent program notes for their recitals, they also help
students think critically about the processes involved in editing the music and understand how
editing can drastically change a musical work.
Music editing processes differ greatly depending on the composer, era of composition,
musical genre, and instrumentation. Most contemporary music is only published once and may
or may not be edited; classical vocal music is often published in multiple editions, by various
publishers and editors. Perhaps it is because so many editions of the same musical work are
published that “edition” has become a catch-all term to encompass various differences in both
format and content. In her dissertation Access Points Perceived as Useful in Searching for
Scores and Recordings, Holly Ann Gardinier discusses how the term “edition” is applied
differently to scores than to non-musical monographs. Her interview subjects, all of whom are
music faculty members, use edition in “at least four different ways: (1) to differentiate formats of
a score, (2) to distinguish versions of a work, (3) to differentiate publishers, and (4) to identify
edited works.”5 To musicians, a difference in edition may refer to the choice between miniature
or full-sized score, piano-vocal or full score, edited anthology or critical edition.
I learned the importance of thinking critically about editions not in a library or classroom
setting, but in a voice lesson. As a freshman vocal performance major, I was assigned “Le
Violette” by Alessandro Scarlatti by my voice teacher. The following week I naively showed up
for my lesson with my shiny new 26 Italian Songs and Arias: an Authoritative Edition Based on
Authentic Sources. I quickly learned that my “Le Violette” was not her “Le Violette.” My
professor rejected my anthology, pulled out Twenty-four Italian Songs and Arias of the
5
Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, and declared that the accompaniment in my edition was
“just awful.” Not only are the accompaniments very different, the vocal line is also slightly
different. In short, the two editions presented two very different pieces.
While this experience certainly opened my eyes to the existence of different editions, it
did not provide a solution to the problem. I did not understand that my teacher’s preference was
based on tradition and not on the quality of the editorial work. Her outright rejection of my
edition meant that I did not read the editor’s notes; I would have benefitted from John Glenn
Paton’s explanation of the manuscript sources he considered, the drastic changes and omissions
in the more familiar version, and his decision to replicate the voice and continuo part exactly.
My next encounter with edition selection came the following summer when I noticed the
word Urtext on the cover of the Bärenreiter score of Mozart’s Complete Songs I purchased.
While conservatory-bound pianists likely discover Urtext as teenagers, singers often sing from
anthologies into their early twenties. One of the voice professors interviewed by Gardinier
suggests that Urtexts are inaccessible to undergraduate singers: “They’ve never been exposed to
practically any music...you want to have access to music that they can get a hold of fairly easily
without sending them into the bowels of the library,”6 but I think students should be given more
credit. After figuring out what Urtext meant, I realized that I had made an unwittingly wise
choice. However, I was unclear how, in the future, I would determine which of the conflicting
sources was authentic or preferred. Where could I learn more about the history of the piece and
its publication history? It was not until I took a graduate-level music research course that I was
instructed to head to the reference collection to consult the collected edition and thematic catalog
and to track down any scholarly editions and manuscript facsimiles available.
6
Though the examples above may not be representative of the typical undergraduate
experience, they do elucidate the need for a discussion of music editing and publishing at some
point in the undergraduate curriculum. Until undergraduate music students are taught to evaluate
scores, they may take for granted that the edition of the piece they have selected is the specific
piece their instructor or professor has in mind. Evaluating and selecting a score requires that
students understand that a single piece is often published by various publishers and in various
arrangements, keys, languages, instrumentations, and compilations. While this kind of
instruction may be offered by a few voice teachers, librarians -- as information literacy
instructors -- are excellent candidates to promote evaluation of editions.
A good reference librarian knows to take into account what the student already knows
and how she typically finds the needed information. So, how do undergraduate singers select
scores? Many start their search not in the library catalog, but online. According to Kirstin
Dougan’s recent survey of the “Information Seeking Behaviors of Music Students,” sixty-five
percent of music students access scores online via International Music Score Library Project
(IMSLP).7 IMSLP, however, is only one of many sources for public-domain and digital versions
of music online, and the proliferation of scores online has changed the way many music students
find, access, and select scores. Due to the increasing amount of digitized scores online and
considerable amount of traffic to IMSLP and similar platforms, the library is sometimes
overlooked and its potential contributions to quality control are rendered moot.
Many librarians have observed that while technology has facilitated discovery, the
ensuing abundance of information can confuse and frustrate users and does not necessarily
encourage their critical faculties. In her article “Navigating Digital Sheet Music on the Web:
Challenges and Opportunities,” Ana Dubnjakovic discusses the prevalence of digital music
7
platforms and user preference for their expanded access. She also emphasizes the importance of
critically thinking about the content: “Although coverage and quality appear to be separate
considerations, they are inextricably linked. This is because electronic scores found on
individuals’ Web sites tend to lack the quality control that one might expect from a library,
society, or even a company, rendering them useless in a situation when accuracy is important.”8
Many students, gratified at the ease of access afforded by online music sources, are unaware that
they are at the same time sacrificing quality. Some public domain scores, for example, include a
fully-realized figured bass that is dated and generally acknowledged as anachronistic, if not
outright inaccurate. Several scores include ornaments, dynamics, and phrasing that are the
editor’s and not the composer’s. Young singers who have not been trained to evaluate the
quality of such questionable content would likely download the content without a second
thought.
Dubnjakovic very articulately describes why the selection of scores demands critical
thinking: “These considerations might be of little or no consequence when dealing with sound
recordings, but music scores are used in a much more active way: scores govern the
performance; are necessary for harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic analysis; and are sometimes
published in different editions and arrangements geared specifically toward a range of
performance and scholarship needs.”9 A recording is a finished product, but a score is subject to
interpretation. Until singers have learned to evaluate the quality of the score, they are likely to
unquestioningly accept the editor’s work as that of the composer.
Fortunately, most undergraduate music students have not completely rejected the library
in favor of online score collections. Dougan’s survey found that the catalog is not viewed “as a
last resort.” She suggests that it is “likely...because so many music materials (especially reliable
8
scores and parts) are not yet easily and freely available elsewhere.”10 Librarians have the benefit
of better and more comprehensive collections; how can they best use this advantage?
What can librarians do to promote evaluation of editions among undergraduate music
majors? What kinds of reference transactions promote critical thinking about edition selection?
It is unlikely that when a freshman stops by the reference desk and asks for Caccini's “Amarilli,
mia bella,” she will have the patience to stop and read the editorial notes in the A-R edition of Le
Nuove Musiche e Nuova Maniera di Scriverle. However, she might. When students ask such a
direct question, they are often not aware of the options available. As Dougan explains, the
complexity of musical scores and recordings--the variety of formats, arrangements, generic
titles--necessitate that “music reference interactions involve a high level of instruction.”11 It is
the librarian’s responsibility to provide users with resources and skills that they can use to enrich
their performances and their understanding of the music, not to get them back into the practice
room as quickly as possible.
A successful reference transaction requires the librarian to determine the exact
information needs of the patron. Some good follow-up questions to the Caccini inquiry above
might include the following:
1. Are you interested in a performance edition?
2. Did your instructor tell you to track down a specific edition/arrangement?
3. Do you want to sing it in the original language, or do you need a singable translation?
4. Are you interested in the original key or a transposition?
4. The library has that song in multiple anthologies and editions; shall I write down a few call
numbers so that you can compare them?
Any of the above questions would introduce some complexity to the seemingly straightforward
activity of pulling the first available score off the shelf.
If instruction for a studio or seminar setting is requested, the librarian could devise a
presentation based on the previously discussed Information Literacy Instructional Objectives for
9
Undergraduate Music Students. A worksheet and a document which lists correlation of the
worksheet tasks to relevant standards and performance indicators are included in Appendix 1 and
Appendix 2. The librarian would demonstrate and explain the worksheet process first and then
answer questions as students complete the worksheet themselves using a piece in their own
repertoire. Immediate application is important because, as Diane Vanderpol and Cheryl Taranto
have noted: “A student may see a librarian hold up a volume of The New Grove Dictionary of
Music and Musicians or RILM Abstracts during a one-shot class session, but until they are in the
library and have a valid, interesting reason to use it, they will not remember what they might
have seen.”12
By collaborating with the voice teacher to select a smaller work such as single song and a
larger work such as opera or oratorio that is in the repertoire of many of the students, the
librarian could ensure that the instruction would have immediacy to the students. The librarian
would demonstrate the process of consulting Grove Music Online to identify the availability of
the composer’s collected works and thematic catalog and to identify any unique title information
from the works list. Relevant passages from the thematic catalog and collected works could be
passed around or projected overhead so that students could see the importance of these resources
in understanding the publication and performance history, provenance, and the editing processes
involved in creating a modern performance score. The librarian would then demonstrate how to
search the catalog and identify various editions of the work.
After identifying several varying editions, the librarian would project or pass around
examples so that students could see the kind of differences that exist between various editions. It
is important to bring several different kinds of editions of the same piece so that students can see
for themselves the differences between good and bad. Heavy-handed phrasing, dynamics, and
10
tempo markings may be less egregious than wrong notes and anachronistic accompaniments, but
they become apparent upon examination. Students must also be taught to make note of the
editor’s work. Good editing is transparent; editors should reveal what sources were consulted
and which were omitted, which notes are theirs and not the composers, and which phrasing,
fingering, tempo, and dynamic markings are their own additions. Until students can see this for
themselves, they may dismiss these concerns as trivial.
In order for any course-integrated instruction to be effective, the librarian must
collaborate with teaching faculty. Integrating information literacy instruction into the studio’s
seminar or master class setting signifies the teacher’s endorsement for both the importance of
researching one’s performance pieces and doing so using library resources. Beth Christensen has
identified several benefits of course-integrated library instruction; the most important of which is
that “The library is perceived as being integral to what it means to be a musician. Thinking
critically about music is a real goal, whether in choosing a score, selecting a recording, or finding
critical works written about music.”13 Both as a musician and a librarian, I cannot think of a
better message to convey to young singers.
Most large collections of scores, whether digital or physical, will include several
erroneous editions. While music librarians endeavor to promote the best possible sources, they
can rarely compete with the convenience of freely available, downloadable scores online. In
order to ensure that young singers are consulting quality sources, we must convey to them the
importance of thinking critically about scores as information sources. Until students realize the
degree to which the same piece can differ from one edition to another, they will not spend the
time and mental energy to evaluate a score. Librarians’ increasing engagement with and fluency
in information literacy instruction enable them to promote evaluation of information sources in a
11
variety of teaching contexts; the rich resources in music library collections provide ample fodder
for comparison of good and bad editions. Music librarians must leverage both advantages to
encourage and develop the critical faculties of undergraduate singers.
NOTES
1. Paul Cary and Laurie J. Sampsel, “Information Literacy Instructional Objectives for
Undergraduate Music Students: A Project of the Music Library Association, Bibliographic
Instruction Subcommittee,” Notes, 62, no. 3 (2006): 663-679.
2. Association of College and Research Libraries, "Objectives for Information Literacy
Instruction: A Model Statement for Academic Librarians," January 2001,
http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/objectivesinformation (accessed 31 December 2012).
3. Amanda Maple, Beth Christensen, and Kathleen A. Abromeit, “Information Literacy for
Undergraduate Music Students: A Conceptual Framework,” Notes 52, no. 3 (March 1996): 752.
4. Ruth Watanabe, “Teaching Bibliography to Performers in a University School of Music,”
Music Reference Services Quarterly 2, no. 1-2 (1993): 201.
5. Holly Ann Gardinier, “Access Points Perceived as Useful in Searching for Music Scores
and Recordings” (PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 2004), 55.
6. Gardinier, Access Points Perceived as Useful, 63.
7. Kirstin Dougan, "Information Seeking Behaviors of Music Students." Reference Services
Review 40, no. 4 (2012): 564.
8. Ana Dubnjakovic, "Navigating Digital Sheet Music on the Web: Challenges and
Opportunities," Music Reference Services Quarterly 12, no. 1-2 (2009): 6-7.
9. Dubnjakovic, "Navigating Digital Sheet Music on the Web,” 6-7.
10. Dougan, "Information Seeking Behaviors of Music Students,” 567.
11. Kirstin Dougan, "Delivering and Assessing Music Reference Services." The Reference
Librarian 54, no. 1 (2013) quoted in Dougan, "Information Seeking Behaviors of Music
Students,” 559.
12. Diane VanderPol and Cheryl Taranto, “Information Literacy: A New Tune for Library
Instruction to Music Students,” Music Reference Services Quarterly 8, no. 2 (December 2002):
22.
13. Beth Christensen, “Warp, Weft, and Waffle: Weaving Information Literacy into an
Undergraduate Music Curriculum,” Notes 60, no. 3 (March 2004), 618.
12
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abromeit, Kathleen A. and Victoria Vaughan, “Info Lit and the Diva: Integrating Information
Literacy into the Oberlin Conservatory of Music Opera Theater Department,” Notes 60, no.3
(March 2004): 632-652.
Association of College and Research Libraries, "Objectives for Information Literacy Instruction:
A Model Statement for Academic Librarians," January 2001,
http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/objectivesinformation (accessed 31 December 2012).
Cary, Paul and Laurie J. Sampsel, “Information Literacy Instructional Objectives for
Undergraduate Music Students: A Project of the Music Library Association, Bibliographic
Instruction Subcommittee,” Notes, Second Series, 62, no. 3 (2006): 663-679.
Christensen, Beth, “Warp, Weft, and Waffle: Weaving Information Literacy into an
Undergraduate Music Curriculum,” Notes 60, no. 3 (March 2004): 616-626.
Dougan, Kirstin, "Information Seeking Behaviors of Music Students." Reference Services
Review 40, no. 4 (2012): 558-573.
Dubnjakovic, Ana, "Navigating Digital Sheet Music on the Web: Challenges and Opportunities,"
Music Reference Services Quarterly 12, no. 1-2 (2009): 3-15.
Gardinier, Holly Ann, “Access Points Perceived as Useful in Searching for Music Scores and
Recordings” (PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 2004).
Gottlieb, Jane, “Reference Service for Performing Musicians: Understanding and Meeting their
Needs.” The Reference Librarian, no. 47 (1994): 47-59.
Maple, Amanda, Beth Christensen, and Kathleen A. Abromeit, “Information Literacy for
Undergraduate Music Students: A Conceptual Framework,” Notes 52, no. 3 (March 1996):
752.
Paton, John Glenn. 26 Italian Songs and Arias: an Authoritative Edition Based on Authentic
Sources. Van Nuys, Calif.: Alfred Publishing Co., 1991.
Pierce, Deborah L., Incorporating Information Literacy into the Music Curriculum. Music
Reference Services Quarterly 8, no. 4 (2005): 57-76.
VanderPol, Diane and Cheryl Taranto, “Information Literacy: A New Tune for Library
Instruction to Music Students,” Music Reference Services Quarterly 8, no. 2 (December
2002): 15-24.
Watanabe, Ruth, “Teaching Bibliography to Performers in a University School of Music,” Music
Reference Services Quarterly 2, no. 1-2 (1993): 195-202.
13
Appendix 1
Edition Evaluation Worksheet
1. Choose a piece you are currently working on (composed before 1900). Look up the composer
/ work in Grove.
a. Note any terms or additional information related to the work of interest (uniform titles,
opus numbers, and/or alternate titles) in the blank below.
______________________________________________________________________________
b. What is the title of the composer’s collected work and thematic catalog? Provide call
number in the blank below and pull them from the shelves.
______________________________________________________________________________
2. Use the terminology in 1.a to search the catalog. Identify one of each of the different types of
musical scores. Write the call number in the blank and pull them from the shelves.
a. Complete works ________________________________________________________
b. Scholarly/critical/Urtext __________________________________________________
c. Edited anthology _______________________________________________________
d. Arrangement, transcription, or transposition _________________________________
3. Compare the scores in front of you. Take a few minutes to skim the editor’s notes.
a. Which do you think is the most authoritative source? Provide three reasons why:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
b. How are the editor’s markings (suggested ornaments, dynamics, etc.) indicated? Do
the scores indicate them in the same way? Explain how they are indicated and any
differences.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
14
Appendix 2
Correlation of Worksheet to Information Literacy Instructional Objectives for Undergraduate
Music Students
Worksheet task 1 relates to:
Standard 1. The information literate student determines the nature and extent of the information
needed.
● Performance Indicator 1. The information literate student defines and articulates the need
for information.
● Performance indicator 2. The information literate student identifies a variety of types and
formats of potential sources for information.
Worksheet task 2 relates to:
Standard 2. The information literate student accesses needed information effectively and
efficiently.
● Performance indicator 2. The information literate student constructs and implements
effectively-designed search strategies.
● Performance indicator 3. The information literate student retrieves information online or
in person using a variety of methods.
Worksheet task 3 relates to:
Standard 3. The information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically and
incorporates selected information into his or her knowledge base and value system.
● Performance Indicator 2. The information literate student articulates and applies initial
criteria for evaluating both the information and its sources.
15
1 Paul Cary and Laurie J. Sampsel, “Information Literacy Instructional Objectives for
Undergraduate Music Students: A Project of the Music Library Association, Bibliographic
Instruction Subcommittee,” Notes, Second Series, 62, no. 3 (2006): 663-679.
2 Association of College and Research Libraries, "Objectives for Information Literacy
Instruction: A Model Statement for Academic Librarians," January 2001,
http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/objectivesinformation (accessed 31 December 2012).
3 Amanda Maple, Beth Christensen, and Kathleen A. Abromeit, “Information Literacy for
Undergraduate Music Students: A Conceptual Framework,” Notes 52 (March 1996): 752.
4 Ruth Watanabe, “Teaching Bibliography to Performers in a University School of Music,”
Music Reference Services Quarterly 2, no. 1/2 (MONTH 1993): 195-202.
5 Holly Ann Gardinier, Access points perceived as useful in searching for music scores and
recordings. Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, Los Angeles, 2004. 55.
6 Gardinier, Access points perceived as useful, 63.
7 Kirstin Dougan, "Information Seeking Behaviors of Music Students." Reference Services
Review 40, no. 4 (2012): 558-573.
8 Ana Dubnjakovic, "Navigating Digital Sheet Music on the Web: Challenges and
Opportunities," Music Reference Services Quarterly 12, no. 1-2 (MONTH 2009): 6-7.
9 Dubnjakovic, "Navigating Digital Sheet Music on the Web,” 6-7.
10 Dougan, "Information Seeking Behaviors of Music Students,” 567.
11 quoted in Dougan, "Information Seeking Behaviors of Music Students,” 559.
12 Diane VanderPol and Cheryl Taranto, “Information Literacy: A New Tune for Library
Instruction to Music Students,” Music Reference Services Quarterly 8, no. 2 (December
2002): 22.
13 Beth Christensen, “Warp, Weft, and Waffle: Weaving Information Literacy into
an Undergraduate Music Curriculum,” Notes 60, no. 3 (MONTH 2004), 618.
