On 26 Feb 2006 at 22:18, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: > Here's an image: > http://maltedmedia.com/images/clow.jpg
Well, I'm going to disagree on this. I think this is not a case of intending a tuplet at all, and if it were, it's difficult to say what is meant by it, whether 5 32nds in the time of 4 or 3 16ths in the time of 2. I think what is meant in performance is pretty clear, that the notes filling in the third should be really fast, and the final note long. It seems to me like an imperfect notation of double dotting, and I think what should be played is actually 2 64ths followed by the dotted 16th. This kind of inaccuracy of small note values is quite common in 18th- century MSS that I've encountered (and in printed editions, too). I am all for reproducing what's in the original sources if it's clear how it ought to be interpreted, but in this case, I wouldn't do it -- I'd decide what was really meant, and I just don't think either of the tuplet interpretations could possibly be intended by the composer or the copyist. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
