On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Christian Mondrup wrote:
> If one follows the convention of adding the figures above the bass staff
> Mats's method is OK. But most modern editions actually place the figures
> below the staff. This is even necessary if one adds a harpsichord
> realization of the thorough bass (see for example my typesetting
> ftp://ftp.gmd.de/music/scores/roman/triosonata/trsg.ps). What I miss is
> an automatic vertical alignement (per staff) of the figures relative to
> the current lowest bass note. If you look at the above mentioned score
> you'll notice that a basso part will tend to go very low sometimes
> making a vertical displacement af the figures necessary. What I would
> also like to see is a way of notating the figures simular to chords, for
> example <6 #4 2>.
I'd like to add to that a suggestion that a figured bass should logically
be a separate staff from a bassline, if things are being done The Right
Way. Although its meaning is tied to the bassline, it is conceptually
more independent from it than, say, fingerings. There could be times when
you'd want to process the meaning of the figured bass, as opposed to just
its textual form.
If done this way, the figured bass would need durations, so that you could
say "do <6 4> for a minim, then <5 3> for a minim".
I realise the figures have limited meaning without the bassline. Does
this create any obvious problems with a separate staff approach?
--
David
