Re: [Finale] Tuplet notation
On 29 Jun 2006 at 6:41, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: I don't dispute your examples of typeset music, but they are *outliers* in terms of normal practice after the period John mentions. The hymnal and choral octavo _are_ outliers, and I intended them as such. However, I have found that handset type was common until about 1950, and was normative for certain types of music publications, particularly high-volume items (like hymnals and songbooks) with a significant alphabetic content. None of that has much bearing at all on what might have caused the omission (not *emission*!) of the tuplets in a contemporary Paganini publication. David stated further, Thus, your hypothesis that norms of typeset music may have caused the engraver of the Paganini to emit duplet indicators is simply completely implausible. By the time any Paganini work was published, engraving or lithography would have been the norm. While I'm prepared to accept that the Paganini might have been engraved or lithographed, . . . I'd bet you $100 that it was. . . . my personal experience is that there is enough possibility that it was typeset that it is risky to venture an opinion whether a specific score was typeset or engraved (or prepared by some other method) unless one direct examines the score in question. . . . I disagree. There was no large-scale typesetting of instrumental music during Paganini's active publication lifespan (c. 1800-40). While there might have been *some* typesetting, it was so uncommon that I've never seen any of it at all. You might wonder what authority I have to state that, but I have been working for an antiquarian music dealer cataloging music of just this period, and there simply isn't any typeset music. I came across *ONE* example of typeset music from 1778 (a Breitkopf edition) while working on Tuesday, but this is so rare as to be worth remarking upon. . . . I have personally examined instrumental music from the late 19th century . . . That's not the relevant period for a Paganini edition. . . . and determined it to have been typeset, and I have examined a printer's manual from about 1875 which includes the layout for a fount of music types, spread across three cases, and including signs used to designate up and down bow indications. All very interesting, but not really of any relevance to a contemporary Paganini edition (I'm assuming it's contemporary, or there'd be no reason to take its notational irregularities seriously as period or authentic practice). Further, even if your position that the music of Paganini was engraved, the fact that music was produced with handset type prior to the custom of engraving it still admits the possibility that the engravers were themselves following a custom established in a prior time, . . . No, I don't think that follows at all. Engraving as a process (and lithography as well) is far more like MS copying than it would be like typesetting. Perhaps during the transition to copper plate engraving there would have typesetters who would transfer the look to the engraved page, but 1800-40 is hundreds of years after that would have been the case. . . . and dictated by the limitations of a former technology, so that while the engraver may have not realized that omission of tuplet indicators was a result of a norm of typesetting, that these norms were in fact the origin of the convention. This would make some sense if it were not for the case that the same omissions are found in MANUSCRIPT music. And again, to restate the major point: whether they were made by a editor, or a production person, such as a lithographer, a typesetter, or an engraver, the fact remains that printed editions may well be the product of choices of other persons than the composer. That I have never disputed. But I think your hypothesis about tuplets being omitted because of some holdover from typesetting practices of 100s of years before is completely without any merit. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Tuplet notation
Lon Price wrote: I'm working on a piece by Paganini for a client, and his handling of tuplets got me wondering about the standards for notating them. This piece is a theme and variations, and when he writes sextuplets the first two show the numbers, and then he leaves them off, which I know is common practice. I suggest that a highly relevant question here is, Whose common practice? It seems to me that this might be the common practice of the publisher, the editor, or engraver, and unless one has examined the autograph, should not be assumed to necessarily be the reflection of the practice or preference of the composer. I am of the opinion that some of the conventions of notation are actually typographer's conventions, dating from the period when music was generated with handset type. Leaving off the numeral in all but the first few tuplets might be (though I do not have definitive information to confirm whether it is or is not) might be an example of this. In this instance, the typographer had a insufficient quantity of the italic numeral 6 to mark every tuplet, and so marked just enough of the tuplets to indicate the first ones, even if Paganini had religiously put a six in each and every sextuplet. Similarly the use of sixteenths instead of thirty-seconds may be dictated in this instance by typographical considerations. I would pose a more general question: some practices, like suppressing numerals on all but the first few tuplets, made a certain amount of sense when other considerations came to play, but these considerations do not apply in computer typesetting, as there is an infinite number of italic numeral sixes, or for that matter, an infinite supply of secondary beams, in the virtual typecase. In such cases, it seems to me that if it makes the music more understandable, though not at the expense of readability, that maybe such considerations should be re-evaluated. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Tuplet notation
At 4:00 AM -0500 6/28/06, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: Lon Price wrote: I'm working on a piece by Paganini for a client, and his handling of tuplets got me wondering about the standards for notating them. This piece is a theme and variations, and when he writes sextuplets the first two show the numbers, and then he leaves them off, which I know is common practice. I am of the opinion that some of the conventions of notation are actually typographer's conventions, dating from the period when music was generated with handset type. Leaving off the numeral in all but the first few tuplets might be (though I do not have definitive information to confirm whether it is or is not) might be an example of this. In this instance, the typographer had a insufficient quantity of the italic numeral 6 to mark every tuplet, and so marked just enough of the tuplets to indicate the first ones, even if Paganini had religiously put a six in each and every sextuplet. Similarly the use of sixteenths instead of thirty-seconds may be dictated in this instance by typographical considerations. I may not completely understand the flow of technological changes, which is why I ask this question. The period when music was generated with handset type, to the best of my knowledge, was the 16th and early 17th centuries. By Paganini's lifetime (1782-1840), was music not being printed from engraved copper plates? And real engraving, with a sharp steel implement, not punched? If so, anything that could be engraved could be placed on the printing plates. My own take, having spent much of my life hand-copying music, is that dropping the tuplet numerals once the note values and bowing have been well established for a passage is simply a time-saving shortcut of the kind that hand-copyists had been using for a very long time, and are still using for hand-copied music. I would pose a more general question: some practices, like suppressing numerals on all but the first few tuplets, made a certain amount of sense when other considerations came to play, but these considerations do not apply in computer typesetting, as there is an infinite number of italic numeral sixes, or for that matter, an infinite supply of secondary beams, in the virtual typecase. In such cases, it seems to me that if it makes the music more understandable, though not at the expense of readability, that maybe such considerations should be re-evaluated. Of course that is true. In manuscript I used a LOT of one-bar and two-bar (and sometimes four-bar) ditto marks, but it is child's play today to copy the notation in those measures throughout the passage. But that may not be the clearest way to indicate consecutive measures with a repetitive pattern, Which brings up other decisions, when using ditto marks: (1) Should the figure be re-notated at the beginning of each line? (My answer, an unequivocal NO!) (2) Should milepost numbers be shown every 4, 8, etc. bars of dittos, when each bar is clearly numbered in the first place? (My answer, an unequivocal YES!!) John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Tuplet notation
On 28 Jun 2006 at 4:00, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: Lon Price wrote: I'm working on a piece by Paganini for a client, and his handling of tuplets got me wondering about the standards for notating them. This piece is a theme and variations, and when he writes sextuplets the first two show the numbers, and then he leaves them off, which I know is common practice. I suggest that a highly relevant question here is, Whose common practice? It seems to me that this might be the common practice of the publisher, the editor, or engraver, and unless one has examined the autograph, should not be assumed to necessarily be the reflection of the practice or preference of the composer. . . . The kind of looseness of rhythmic notation that was described is absolutely standard for the period in both printed editions and MS. . . . I am of the opinion that some of the conventions of notation are actually typographer's conventions, dating from the period when music was generated with handset type. . . . Type? I don't know the exact source, but Paganini would be likely to be engraved (or lithography created from an engraved original). . . . Leaving off the numeral in all but the first few tuplets might be (though I do not have definitive information to confirm whether it is or is not) might be an example of this. In this instance, the typographer had a insufficient quantity of the italic numeral 6 to mark every tuplet, and so marked just enough of the tuplets to indicate the first ones, even if Paganini had religiously put a six in each and every sextuplet. . . Type was not involved. Punches were, and these would have been used as often as the engraver deemed necessary. I know MSS and prints from the period and what was described in the Paganini was standard practice. . . . Similarly the use of sixteenths instead of thirty-seconds may be dictated in this instance by typographical considerations. It makes a certain sense, actually, given that what the passage is about (if I've understood correctly) is filling in an interval with scales. What matters is not the exact rhythm of the subdivisions, but that one perceives that one has to fit all the notes into a certain time span. I would pose a more general question: some practices, like suppressing numerals on all but the first few tuplets, made a certain amount of sense when other considerations came to play, but these considerations do not apply in computer typesetting, as there is an infinite number of italic numeral sixes, or for that matter, an infinite supply of secondary beams, in the virtual typecase. In such cases, it seems to me that if it makes the music more understandable, though not at the expense of readability, that maybe such considerations should be re-evaluated. I think that your major premise (that leaving out repeated items came from the limitations of typeset music) is WRONG, as typeset music was a small proportion of all the music in the 18th and 19th centuries -- most of it was engraved using punches, and so it was much more like manuscript than it was like typesetting. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Tuplet notation
On 28 Jun 2006 at 12:55, John Howell wrote: At 4:00 AM -0500 6/28/06, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: Lon Price wrote: I'm working on a piece by Paganini for a client, and his handling of tuplets got me wondering about the standards for notating them. This piece is a theme and variations, and when he writes sextuplets the first two show the numbers, and then he leaves them off, which I know is common practice. I am of the opinion that some of the conventions of notation are actually typographer's conventions, dating from the period when music was generated with handset type. Leaving off the numeral in all but the first few tuplets might be (though I do not have definitive information to confirm whether it is or is not) might be an example of this. In this instance, the typographer had a insufficient quantity of the italic numeral 6 to mark every tuplet, and so marked just enough of the tuplets to indicate the first ones, even if Paganini had religiously put a six in each and every sextuplet. Similarly the use of sixteenths instead of thirty-seconds may be dictated in this instance by typographical considerations. I may not completely understand the flow of technological changes, which is why I ask this question. The period when music was generated with handset type, to the best of my knowledge, was the 16th and early 17th centuries. . . . There was also Breitkopf's new typesetting in the 18th century, which was used by BH (I just saw such an edition yesterday) and also by some publishers in Berlin who bought type from Breitkopf. But it was definitely the minority in the 18th century, and did not last into the 19th, so far as I'm aware. . . . By Paganini's lifetime (1782-1840), was music not being printed from engraved copper plates? And real engraving, with a sharp steel implement, not punched? If so, anything that could be engraved could be placed on the printing plates. Cutting plus punches. Numbers would likely be put in with punches, not with a cutting tool. Of course, lithography also arose during Paganini's lifetime, and that was sometimes done from engraved originals. My own take, having spent much of my life hand-copying music, is that dropping the tuplet numerals once the note values and bowing have been well established for a passage is simply a time-saving shortcut of the kind that hand-copyists had been using for a very long time, and are still using for hand-copied music. I would agree. And engraving is very much like hand copying in a number of ways, much more so than it is like typesetting. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Tuplet notation
On Jun 28, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:As to the question of what is correct *now*, things are not quite as simple as you suggest. In particular, the proper number of beams for a septuplet has been a vexed question for a very long time. Many composers follow the rule you cite, that a tuplet should always be beamed according to the next slower "plain" note value (note that the duplet is an exception to this). Other composers, including me, follow a different rule: that the beaming of a tuplet should follow the *closest* plain note value, with the triplet being the dividing point (anything faster than a triplet gets more beams). When I prepare music for printing I try to keep the player in mind, because I was a player before I was a copyist/engraver, composer or arranger. And I am still active as a player, so I can still think that way. What's gonna make it easier to play? It seems to me that 7 16ths are a lot of notes to fit into one beat (one less than twice as many), whereas 7 32nds seem more natural (one less than the normal number). I would never go so far as to put 8 or 9 16ths beamed together--they'd have to be 32nds. But I don't get to decide in this case, since I'm working for someone else. I discussed this with him, and he opted to keep it like the original. This is a case where an arpeggio is being extended by one interval at a time (6 notes, then 7, 8 and 9), and it's pretty clear to the eye, just looking at it. But as a player, when it gets to 7 and above, I want to see 32nds. Lon Price, Los Angeles[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.txstnr.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Tuplet notation
John Howell wrote: I may not completely understand the flow of technological changes, which is why I ask this question. The period when music was generated with handset type, to the best of my knowledge, was the 16th and early 17th centuries. A little off on the end; the last piece of music I have seen that was handset was a choral publication by Novello in 1962. It was common up until about 1950; just about all hymnals and music books produced were set with handset type, and I have a violin piece (though not by Paganini) in a volume published at the end of the 19th century, which was printed from handset type. By Paganini's lifetime (1782-1840), was music not being printed from engraved copper plates? And real engraving, with a sharp steel implement, not punched? If so, anything that could be engraved could be placed on the printing plates. I understand punch engraving began to be used in the mid-eighteenth century; I don't know enough about the history of printing music to know when and where it was used, or under what conditions. My main intent in my post was to point out that what we see on the printed page may well represent the synthesis of the ideas of a number of people, and unless on has access to the autograph copy by the composer, may not represent only the composer's intentions. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Tuplet notation
On 28 Jun 2006 at 18:21, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: John Howell wrote: I may not completely understand the flow of technological changes, which is why I ask this question. The period when music was generated with handset type, to the best of my knowledge, was the 16th and early 17th centuries. A little off on the end; the last piece of music I have seen that was handset was a choral publication by Novello in 1962. It was common up until about 1950; just about all hymnals and music books produced were set with handset type, and I have a violin piece (though not by Paganini) in a volume published at the end of the 19th century, which was printed from handset type. I don't dispute your examples of typeset music, but they are *outliers* in terms of normal practice after the period John mentions. By Paganini's lifetime (1782-1840), was music not being printed from engraved copper plates? And real engraving, with a sharp steel implement, not punched? If so, anything that could be engraved could be placed on the printing plates. I understand punch engraving began to be used in the mid-eighteenth century; I don't know enough about the history of printing music to know when and where it was used, or under what conditions. My main intent in my post was to point out that what we see on the printed page may well represent the synthesis of the ideas of a number of people, and unless on has access to the autograph copy by the composer, may not represent only the composer's intentions. But typesetting had *nothing* to do with the choices made in engraved music, which was very similar to copying with pen and ink in terms of what the engraver could put on the page. Thus, your hypothesis that norms of typeset music may have caused the engraver of the Paganini to emit duplet indicators is simply completely implausible. By the time any Paganini work was published, engraving or lithography would have been the norm. The move to lithography greatly increased the similarity between creating printed editions and copying manuscripts (cf. the first edition of the score of Wagner's Tannhäuser, for example). -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Tuplet notation
On Jun 27, 2006, at 9:58 PM, Lon Price wrote: I'm working on a piece by Paganini for a client, and his handling of tuplets got me wondering about the standards for notating them. This piece is a theme and variations, and when he writes sextuplets the first two show the numbers, and then he leaves them off, which I know is common practice. But in the finale he has sextuplets (no number), then a septuplet (still no number), then 8 16ths in the time of 4, and finally 9 16ths in the time of 4. It's my understanding of the rule for tuplets is that the number of tuplets in one beat should not exceed the subdivided metrical value ( 5, 6 or 7 16ths in the time of 4). So when Paganini gets to 8 and 9 notes in one beat, that should be 32nds. I realize that I have to faithfully reproduce what he wrote (who am I to question the great Paganini?), but isn't this technically incorrect? Yup, it is incorrect. I would never write something like that, but when it is music at someone else's standard, I don't know what to do. Maybe someone else with more experience with older music in newer editions can chime in. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Tuplet notation
On 27 Jun 2006 at 22:29, Christopher Smith wrote: On Jun 27, 2006, at 9:58 PM, Lon Price wrote: I'm working on a piece by Paganini for a client, and his handling of tuplets got me wondering about the standards for notating them. This piece is a theme and variations, and when he writes sextuplets the first two show the numbers, and then he leaves them off, which I know is common practice. But in the finale he has sextuplets (no number), then a septuplet (still no number), then 8 16ths in the time of 4, and finally 9 16ths in the time of 4. It's my understanding of the rule for tuplets is that the number of tuplets in one beat should not exceed the subdivided metrical value ( 5, 6 or 7 16ths in the time of 4). So when Paganini gets to 8 and 9 notes in one beat, that should be 32nds. I realize that I have to faithfully reproduce what he wrote (who am I to question the great Paganini?), but isn't this technically incorrect? Yup, it is incorrect. I would never write something like that, but when it is music at someone else's standard, I don't know what to do. Maybe someone else with more experience with older music in newer editions can chime in. There is no right or wrong answer. What you put in your edition depends on the purpose of your edition. I would probably change the 8 tuplets to 32nds and include an indication of this change in the critical notes. Why? Because it's going to be easier for people to play, and it's more important to me that people be able to play the old music I'm editing than it is that the edition slavishly follow the original. However, I don't believe there's any information loss by doing this. If there were notational issues that indicated something that could be lost, I would retain the original. This is why I slavishly follow original beaming, including the now out-of-fashion crossed beams (i.e., something like |/|). I think those are as significant as beam breaks in indicating possible subtleties of phrasing, so I always retain them. But I can't see how retaining an 8 tuplet clarifies anything at all. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
