Biblioarchaeology? It's a real thing!

But perhaps the word biblioarchaeology hasn't been applied to a modern musical score published in 1955?

It's like this. We have six copies. Four are annotated to the effect that they have ink markings indicating the composer's intentions, as he explained to one of the first performers.  So, they're all the same?

No.  This is problematical!

• The ink markings in each of the annotated copies are NOT identical!
• Each of the four annotated copies - and the other two - have copious pencil markings as well. 
• Three of the annotated copies (in different hands) say the composer dictated these markings to the performer.
• One of the annotated copies says the additions were made BY the composer.
• One of the annotated copies mentioning dictation, was annotated by a former chief librarian, and is likely to be correct - but it doesn't have the earliest accession number or the earliest previous shelf-mark.  To be fair, they've all been reclassified, and there's no way of being certain that the apparently earliest copy really entered the library first.  They could have all been bought at the same time, and we wouldn't know.

Of course, today we recognise that the piece is significant, that one of the first performers was significant - and knew the composer - and that those markings are important (once we've worked out which are which). The scores will go into our special collections.  In earlier times, perhaps we weren't so aware of the importance of such contemporary commentary.

As for the pencil notes by however many subsequent students and their teachers?  Well, it again goes to demonstrate that although some annotations are crucially important, scribbles in library copies aren't necessarily a good thing!