it depends whether you are doing a reprint of a beethoven or a score of music composed since 1909.
4/4 followed by 12/8 is not found in beethoven's manuscripts. one does however encounter changes from, for example, 8 x 8th notes per measure grouped in twos, to 12 x 8th notes per measure grouped in threes in a subsequent measure of 4/4. it was - and is - understood that triplets were implied [although they are not always indicated]; the quarter in this case remains constant [whether divided in eighths or triplets]. some later editions use time signature changes in the place of the change in the number of notes per measure and their grouping; quarter @ 60 in 4/4 now becomes dotted quarter @ 60 in 12/8, and is invariably interpreted in this manner. while many other so-called conventions are not really absolutes, but require reconsideration in context [forcing the conventions to be rather flexible in some cases], i am absolutely convinced that it should be taken for granted to be an absolute in music written since 1909 that: 8th in 4/4 = 8th in 12/8 ...and... quarter in 4/4 = quarter in 2/2, etc... *!* unless indications to the contrary appear *!*, either in the form of: tempo changes, or graphic indications [q = q.] there have certainly been exceptions to this rule, but this is one notational reform which can clearly be justified and should be encouraged, since tuplets are no longer an exception, but a norm in music, and to make use of such archaisms [quarter = dotted quarter, without some form of text or graphic indication] is to invite ambiguity and fault in the interpretation, one way or the other. there you have it, my polemic contribution. jef -- shirling & neueweise \................/ new music notation specialists mailto:shirling@;newmusicnotation.com :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ++ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
