On 4 Jan 2004 at 8:51, Harold Owen wrote: > I have to agree with Johannes. The normal "whole rest" can be very > deceiving in 4/2, 3/1, and other signatures larger than 2/2 when used > to indicate a measure rest because it must be available to indicate > exactly 2 half notes' duration in a measure that contains notes as > well. I remember reading from an edition that used the ordinary whole > rest in empty measures that were followed by measures beginning with a > "whole rest' followed by two half notes. That was very confusing. The > larger signatures are much more common to early music where the > original manuscripts used stacked up rests to show a voice part that > did not begin until after a long wait. Most of us do not use meters > larger than 3/2 nowadays (and I think that some contemporary scores > I've seen that use 4/2 would be much easier to read in 4/4). IMHO, > transcribers of early music intended for performance (especially by > amateur choirs) are well advised to reduce the original meters. A good > performance, after all, is a more important goal than what the score > looks like. Study scores are a different matter.
I strenuosly disagree with the advice to diminish 4/2 to 4/4 or (ever more so) 3/2 to 3/4. Those who practice early music on a regular basis are quite accustomed to the longer note values and halving them (in some cases, you're actually halving them a *second* time, in comparison to the original notation) makes it harder to read. It all depends on the expected audience for your edition. If you're doing an edition of Palestrina for performance by high school musicians, perhaps 4/4 or 2/2 is appropriate. Perhaps. In the long run, I don't think you're doing anyone a favor by not asking them to work in notation as close as possible to the original. Say you have a group of musicians that you accommodate by halving the note values, the end result is that they never become accustomed to the older convention and then have a great deal of trouble with editions that use the conventions closer to the original notation (of which there are many, indeed, probably the majority). And it makes a difference in how the music comes out, in my opinion. Give the same music to players accustomed to reading both, and the musical results will likely be better for the longer note values. I can tell you this: if you're writing for viols, you'll get worse results with halved note values. At the point that viol players start seeing 16th notes (for what would have been 8ths in direct value transcription), you starting getting problems. And there are often 16th notes in music in a meter of 4/2 or 3/2. In diminution, you'd end up with 32nd notes, which are guaranteed to be a problem. So, this all depends on your repertory and the audience for your edition. I would say that performers are better served by learning to cope than they are by having their modern expectations accomodated in older music. The difference in notation is a constant reminder that they aren't playing Brahms, and I think that's a good thing. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
