Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
David Fention writes:
"Hogwood has replaced one categorical tradition with another one."
No, not really. I think Christopher Hogwood just believes in observing
da capo marks that's in the music.
What you see is what you get. No more, no less. At least you can say
he's taking the music at it's face value.
Since the repeat symbols are there are in the scores, the onus is you
to show that they were meant to be ignored.
Neal Zaslaw (who edited the new Kochel catalogue), also has stated
there is no such evidence. As have other researchers.
I can't imagine why they would lie about such a matter.
All the other ancillary issues about what was added by
Hogwood/Zaslaw, or what version of the NMA was used, or what you found
in your sources doesn't matter to me because
I'm speaking of the instances where there are no questions about the da
capo markings that are written into the scores or parts.
How about the "wrong notes" which were written into the scores or parts?
Are they to be slavishly followed, too?
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
