Ah yes, I'd forgotten how rude and condescending you can be. Why can't you just state your point of view without insulting people? Pertaining to how "sure" I am, I won't go into all the details of how many Chopin facsimiles I've seen or what I know about Henle Urtext editions: I'll just say that I would bet a considerable sum of money on those particular beamings and shared noteheads being the same in the Henle edition and in Chopin's manuscript.
I'll also point out, once more, that the example Steve posted is indeed directly related to the original discussion, since it contains noteheads shared by dotted notes. Michael On 8 Feb 2011, at 14:26, David W. Fenton wrote: > On 8 Feb 2011 at 10:33, Florence + Michael wrote: > >> I have the Henle Urtext edition of that Nocturne, which should >> reproduce Chopin's notation: > > You seem to have a naïve idea about what a Henle Urtext actually is. > It still has editorial changes to it, even though the "Urtext" > designation would tend to make one think that it doesn't. And that > often includes things that are considered notationally incidental (as > this might of might not be for any particular editor). > >> as far as I can see it is the same as in >> that example. We're discussing dotted notes that share noteheads: you >> can see some in measures 33 - 35. >> >> Another nice example is given the Nocturne in F# minor, opus 48 Nr. 2. >> The Henle Urtext edition shows a dotted half note sharing a notehead >> with a half note in the first measure. In measures 7 and 8, triplet >> eighth notes share noteheads with half notes or dotted quarter notes. >> I'm sure this was how Chopin wrote it. > > In other words, you've looked at Chopin's autograph, or a > reproduction of it? > > If not, you have no basis at all for being sure of what Chopin wrote! > > At least, not for any definition of "sure" that I > >> Other editions have tried to >> "correct" Chopin's notation, see for instance here: >> >> http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=MN0073868 >> >> Putting aside the question of whether we should accurately reproduce >> Chopin's shared noteheads or not (I think we should), I'd say that the >> double notehead in measure 1 is OK, but the double noteheads in >> measures 7 and 8 are clumsy and hinder the reading of the passage. > > I'm agnostic on one or the other. I'm just a stickler for precision > in the question of what notational practices derive from the > composer. You can't assume anything about that unless you're looking > at the composer's own hand, or (to a lesser extent), at an edition > that is known to have been supervised by the composer. > > -- > 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 _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
