Renotating the music into different durations purely to make the job easier for the engraver is a cop-out. Worse still is to have reduced durations for some sections and original for others. With or without extra indications for what has happened, that misrepresents the composer's behaviour.
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 8 Feb 2004 at 23:40, d. collins wrote:
David W. Fenton écrit:
Then why is 3/2 completely unacceptable?
Well, it would involve cutting all the measures in two, and I don't really see the point in it. The presence of a section in 6/4 isn't the only reason against changing the 6/2 to 6/4. We've discussed this here already, and I (and others) prefer to retain the original time signatures.
There's nothing hard about "cutting the measures in two." You just change the meter and rebar.
I have never seen any edition of old music with 6/2, ever, and I don't think it's going to be easy for people to read.
In the discussion of "old time signatures" I argued that anything with a half note beat you keep the original, but with a whole note beat, I'm all for halving the note values, simply because of the huge problem with the rests. Also, it's just too easy to get lost within measures of such huge note values.
If a previous section is in 6/4 and you're trying to maintain proportionality, this can be handled with an indication of the original meter and an equivalence between the 6/2 section and the previous section.
I think you'd have real performance problems with 6/2 -- I'd never put it before the performers in the NYU Collegium, and they perform in old time signatures all the time (and occasionally in original notation).
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
