Just so you don't get me wrong: I am not trying to convince you of anything.
On 07.11.2005 David W. Fenton wrote:
But leaps mean something and the reversed beams, I believe, help mark
them clearly. To me, by removing them, you are removing one of the
clues to contour that could be helpful to a reader of the music.
I actually find them much harder to read, especially in examples like
the one you showed (Mozart). Very awquard, bad looking and not helpful
to me as a sightreader. Agreed, it's partly because I am simply not
expecting them in a modern edition. But it is also largely due to the
fact that modern notation looks wrong like that. We are used to certain
beam angles and placement which is simply not possible like this.
Also, by removing them for wide leaps, you often have to introduce a
beam break or you'll end up with horridly ugly beaming (a steap angle
or an extremely long stem for at least one of the notes).
Well, I already said that I might use such beams under exceptional
circumstances, including exceptionally wide leaps. The Mozart example
certainly isn't such an exceptionally wide leap. And I don't think it is
the actual interval either, it is the question of whether the beam would
end up too far away from the staff. That would require leaps from notes
on several ledger lines above and below the staff. Which is pretty
exceptional. I have never needed to break a beam because of not using
reversed beaming, and I think that's simply a silly assumption.
By your line of reasoning, I'd think we should remove convert the
conventional appaggiatura notation into 4 16th notes. You don't do
*that*, so where are you drawing the line on what is meaningful about
the original notation and what is not?
By your line of reasoning you have no choice but to use old lead
engraving with stencils, duplicating every aspect of the original.
Actually, the only accurate way of doing it is by means of Facsimiles.
Seriously, I don't think appogiatura notation compares in the least with
reversed beaming. On the other hand I have got the flu and am too tired
to start an argument about it. I draw the line pretty much exactly where
every publisher of critical, complete and Urtext editions draws the
line. That means no reversed beaming apart from exceptions. But there is
no question that appogiatura notation should be maintained.
BTW, a lot of people will disagree that the case you are describing as
appogiatura notation would translate into 4 16th notes. I am not
necessarily one of them, but I do know that there is an example in CPE
Bach where he clearly says the appogiatura needs to be a short one. It's
a pretty complex problem.
I have yet to see any mention of reversed beaming in any text books of
the period, let alone an indication of any musical consequences.
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
