On 8 Feb 2004 at 23:46, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 08.02.2004 23:29 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote > > > On 8 Feb 2004 at 23:13, d. collins wrote: > > > >> David W. Fenton écrit: > >>> Is renotating the whole thing in 6/4 not an option? > >> > >> Not really, because there is a section in 6/4 in the same piece. > > > > Then why is 3/2 completely unacceptable? > > Well, I don't know the piece in question, but you couldn't normally > notate a 6/8 piece in 3/8 either. The two are fundamentally different.
Yes, but the question is one of whether or not the music can be conveyed in the modern meter in a fashion that will be performed well without lots of extra practice. There is no issue with 6/8 in terms of what musicians are accustomed to reading, so there's no point in comparing it to the Dennis's situation. > And if I am correct, and Dennis is working on Rennaissance music I > think it is a good idea to keep as much as possible of the original > meters. Well, I think fidelity to 4/1 and 6/2 meters is a mistake, as it's just too hard to read the rests. Proportionality is not sufficient reason for it, as the proportionality can be indicated the things like quarter = half, and the like. > You wouldn't notate the slow movement of that Beethoven piano concerto > in larger note values, just because 128ths are difficult to read, > would you? I wouldn't change the notation of Beethoven because there is no reason to do so, as the notational convention is continuous and well- known to modern performers. I perform a lot of this music, on a regular basis, and have done so for years. I have never run across music in 6/2, ever, so it would be a stumbling block for me and the people I perform with. That's a good enough reason to transcribe it into something else, in my opinion. -- 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
