On 9 Feb 2004 at 0:26, Owain Sutton wrote: > There's endless 'old music' in 6/2, just that the signature itself > does not exist. . . .
I didn't say there wasn't. I just said I had never seen editions in 6/2. > . . . 2 groups of 3 subgroups of minims is perfectly > normal. It's simply not hard to read, but people have a hangup about > it and assume it's hard to read without even trying. I think it's hard to read precisely because there are no editions I know of that use it. > Renotating the music into different durations purely to make the job > easier for the engraver is a cop-out. . . . I was not making any such justification for the transcription. I was calling for it for the good of the performers. > . . . 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. Sounds like you should not be doing editions at all, just presenting the original notation. I think it's the responsibility of the editor to make the music performable while retaining as much of the original notational content as practical. This may mean judicious alterations to the original notation. I agree that long note values are helpful in getting the style (I would never notate 3/1 in 3/4, for instance), but note values that are too long become a hindrance to performability, particularly in regard to the comprehensibility of the rests (which is what prompted this thread). I don't see that the music is harmed in any way. And I think modern early music performers make too much of a fetish of proportionality between sections. It was relevant in the mensural period, but certainly not after it, but many practitioners can't seem to tell the difference. -- 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
