On 8 Feb 2011 at 16:29, Florence + Michael wrote: > 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?
This is not about connoisseurship -- it's about facts. There's a long history among music lovers of extending one's statements about music beyond what is supported by actual evidence. This seems like just such a case. > 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. That's not at all the same thing as asserting that the Henle beamings/noteheads are Chopin's. > 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. It's got notes and key signatures, too!!!! It must mean something! -- 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
