On Sunday, November 22, 2015, Simon Albrecht-2 [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n183931...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:
> On 22.11.2015 14:52, tisimst wrote:
> > One other thing I noticed in Valse 2, m. 42-43 - remove staccato from
> > tied end notes. They just don't make sense. I would guess the one in
> > the source engraving (m. 42) is a typo as it is omitted in the next
> > measure.
>
> It is definitely not. There is perfect consistency between the staccato
> dots in mm. 37f. and 41–43: the crotchets are supposed to be cut short.
> The first note in m. 44 already is a quaver, and the slur from the next
> note also suggests playing it short, so there is no necessity for the
> dot here. In general, please be careful about changing notation in such
> situations! If you can’t make any sense from that which the composer
> wrote, that doesn’t mean there is none. The 19th century used a number
> of notational features, which were forgotten during the 20th century,
> such as the distinction between (de)crescendo and hairpins. If we as
> modern editors iron out these, we are in danger of eradicating
> information which contains important hints on the performance practice
> and intent of the music.
>
> Yours, Simon
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> [hidden email] <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=183931&i=0>
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
You are right, Simon. Thank you for correcting me. I didn't mean to
arbitrarily dismiss a marking that was unfamiliar to me. I'll be more
careful in the future. In a way, it makes me wonder about deviating from
these original engravings *at all*.
Best,
Abraham
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Gounod-Le-Rendez-Vous-tp183419p183933.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
