Re: [Finale] dotted notes
I have the Henle Urtext edition of that Nocturne, which should reproduce Chopin's notation: 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. 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. Michael On 8 Feb 2011, at 05:00, David W. Fenton wrote: On 7 Feb 2011 at 13:28, Steve Parker wrote: Found one on the web. http://www.music.informatics.indiana.edu/media/don/chopinnocturnediffd urs_context2.jpg There is so much 'technically' rhythmically wrong and unclear here. Of course it is perfectly clear and expressive. Imagine writing it as played and it feels like a different piece The F# Nocturne -- I played it. I don't know what your point is by citing it. It doesn't at all relate to the topic we were speaking about -- it introduces a whole host of unrelated issues (so far as I can see). And that's the Paderewski edition, which does not necessarily represent what was in Chopin's autograph. -- 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 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
On 8 Feb 2011, at 04:00, David W. Fenton wrote: I don't know what your point is by citing it. It doesn't at all relate to the topic we were speaking about -- it introduces a whole host of unrelated issues (so far as I can see). I thought to some small extent that we had gone on to a more general discussion of technically correct versus clear. My whole point is that there are a whole host of issues and that, despite their 'wrongness' Chopin can (usually) be found to be quite explicit. I gave the example because it was easy to find on the internet whilst away from my scores. Also as a pathological example where a lot of the note values do not mean what they say. And that's the Paderewski edition, which does not necessarily represent what was in Chopin's autograph. I really am not so dumb nor inexperienced to give an example that is not the same. The often elegant idiosyncrasies of Chopin's (own..) writing are well known and discussed. ? Steve P. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
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. 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] dotted notes
On 8 Feb 2011 at 10:36, Steve Parker wrote: On 8 Feb 2011, at 04:00, David W. Fenton wrote: And that's the Paderewski edition, which does not necessarily represent what was in Chopin's autograph. I really am not so dumb nor inexperienced to give an example that is not the same. The often elegant idiosyncrasies of Chopin's (own..) writing are well known and discussed. ? To misquote Jerry Maguire: SHOW ME THE AUTOGRAPH! Seriously. You can't make remarks about Chopin's notational practices/intentions by referring to anything else (unless you can demonstrate that Chopin supervised the edition you're looking at). Are you saying that you've compared the cited example to Chopin's autograph? Or only that you've read someone who says it's the same? If the latter, I wouldn't trust it. I learned along time ago that lots of things get into print (even from reputable and reliable scholars) that don't hold up under an examination of the actual evidence. So, I simply wouldn't believe any such discussion unless I could see the examples on which it was based. -- 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] dotted notes
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. Fentonhttp://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
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
At 10:33 AM +0100 2/8/11, Florence + Michael wrote: I have the Henle Urtext edition of that Nocturne, which should reproduce Chopin's notation: 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. Small point, perhaps, but an urtext is an attempt to reproduce accurately a composer's original intention minus subsequent layers of editorial decisions. But whether it attempts to reproduce the original notation is not at all clear. A facsimile, on the other hand, IS the original notation, but still needs to be interpreted. Notation is not and never has been a matter of this shall ye do and none other! It has always been a combination of tradition, innovation, and attempted communication between composer and performer. The marks on the paper are no more the music than a blueprint is a building. As just one pretty obvious example, the BG editors attempted to reproduce Bach's music exactly, including keeping the original clefs that he used. But they foundered on the fact that the standard pitch and the organ pitch in the various places where Bach worked was different, and sometimes the organ part was notated in a different key from the other parts. They had to make decisions, but in some cases they made the wrong decisions. The NBA edition, on the other hand, made an attempt to resolve some of the questions raised by the BG edition, but used modern clefs to do so, not the clefs Bach used. Therefore, not an exact copy. Both are urtext, for their own time, place, and practices. I'm not a pianist so I can't speak to Chopin's notation, but I'm very aware that composers often used notation that was in effect a shorthand and in some cases very idiosyncratic, so even first editions (which may or may not have been approved by the composer--don't assume that they were!!)--have been edited by SOMEONE and perhaps reflect editorial practice of the time rather than the composer's notation. And when we get into manuscripts of unpublished works--well, just ask Kim Patrick about some of the things he's had to unravel in his transcriptions of 18th century music!! Just one of the little frustrations musicologists have to deal with on a daily basis. Silly ol' composers! John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
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. 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] dotted notes
Found one on the web. http://www.music.informatics.indiana.edu/media/don/chopinnocturnediffdurs_context2.jpg There is so much 'technically' rhythmically wrong and unclear here. Of course it is perfectly clear and expressive. Imagine writing it as played and it feels like a different piece. Steve P. On 5 Feb 2011, at 01:04, David W. Fenton wrote: On 5 Feb 2011 at 0:16, Steve Parker wrote: http://en.chopin.nifc.pl/institute/publications/facsimile I've seen plenty of examples of Chopin's hand, and lots of facsimiles, but I didn't know about this wonderful resource -- thanks for the URL! You've probably seen, but if not the above is examples of Chopin's hand. Not sure he would get work as a copyist... A pianist who is a friend owns (I think) all of the available facsimiles and every published edition that he can get of Chopin's entire output. A bit of a trainspotter but frequently fascinating. He also just about believes that Angela Lear is the only pianist worth hearing play Chopin. I'm away but will give proper examples when back home, but the kind of thing I mean is a minim on the first stem of three beamed quavers rather than a dotted crotchet. Wrong but perfectly clear and uncluttered. Some specific citations would be much more useful than a general assertion that what you suggest is there in the MSS. -- 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 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
On 7 Feb 2011 at 13:28, Steve Parker wrote: Found one on the web. http://www.music.informatics.indiana.edu/media/don/chopinnocturnediffd urs_context2.jpg There is so much 'technically' rhythmically wrong and unclear here. Of course it is perfectly clear and expressive. Imagine writing it as played and it feels like a different piece The F# Nocturne -- I played it. I don't know what your point is by citing it. It doesn't at all relate to the topic we were speaking about -- it introduces a whole host of unrelated issues (so far as I can see). And that's the Paderewski edition, which does not necessarily represent what was in Chopin's autograph. -- 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] dotted notes
I've seen all those situations. The least common one seems to be two different dotted values: not because people use two noteheads in this situation (they usually don't), but simply because two dotted notes of different values on a unison doesn't happen as often as the other cases. One dotted value and one undotted value is very common. It's specially useful for repeated patterns. In 6/8 time you often have broken chords in quavers with the first note of each group of three held down for the length of a dotted crotchet (Schumann, Abegg variations, finale, for instance). As a pianist I don't think twice about this: I read the figure with the shortest note values and see the notes that have to be held longer. Elaine Gould also gives an example where a minim (half-note) shares a notehead with a crotchet (quarter-note): the notehead stays white. She says this is acceptable in the context of repeated patterns and I agree with her. If you can get your hands on a copy of Debussy's Etudes pour le Piano, have a look at N° XI, pour les Arpèges composés: shared noteheads with no dots, single dots, double dots... not always self-consistent but I don't think any pianist has doubts about what Debussy wanted. Michael On 4 Feb 2011, at 08:54, dc wrote: Thanks again to all for the comments on this. Michael wrote: I just leafed through some of my piano music: Henle Urtext, Wiener Urtext, Bärenreiter and other renowned European publishers. Two different valued notes sharing a notehead is a common occurence: putting double noteheads in all those places would clutter up the music unnecessarily. Are you referring to the specific situations I was asking about 1) one dotted value and one undotted value 2) two different dotted values Or simply 3) two different undotted values (say a quarter and and eighth)? Thanks again, Dennis ___ 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
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
On 3 Feb 2011 at 23:43, Steve Parker wrote: I have some facsimiles, but good editions (I like Alfred) usually preserve such things. But my point is that if you don't know the notation derives from Chopin himself, you can't actually attribute it to Chopin. I'd be interested to see some examples from his MSS, actually, but I don't have any Chopin facsimiles. -- 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] dotted notes
No, the Alfred and some other editions make a point of stating where they've copied Chopin literally, often against the practice of earlier editions which have 'corrected' passages. Steve On 4 Feb 2011, at 19:24, David W. Fenton lists.fin...@dfenton.com wrote: On 3 Feb 2011 at 23:43, Steve Parker wrote: I have some facsimiles, but good editions (I like Alfred) usually preserve such things. But my point is that if you don't know the notation derives from Chopin himself, you can't actually attribute it to Chopin. I'd be interested to see some examples from his MSS, actually, but I don't have any Chopin facsimiles. -- 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 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
http://en.chopin.nifc.pl/institute/publications/facsimile You've probably seen, but if not the above is examples of Chopin's hand. Not sure he would get work as a copyist... A pianist who is a friend owns (I think) all of the available facsimiles and every published edition that he can get of Chopin's entire output. A bit of a trainspotter but frequently fascinating. He also just about believes that Angela Lear is the only pianist worth hearing play Chopin. I'm away but will give proper examples when back home, but the kind of thing I mean is a minim on the first stem of three beamed quavers rather than a dotted crotchet. Wrong but perfectly clear and uncluttered. Steve P. On 4 Feb 2011, at 23:55, Steve Parker wrote: No, the Alfred and some other editions make a point of stating where they've copied Chopin literally, often against the practice of earlier editions which have 'corrected' passages. Steve On 4 Feb 2011, at 19:24, David W. Fenton lists.fin...@dfenton.com wrote: On 3 Feb 2011 at 23:43, Steve Parker wrote: I have some facsimiles, but good editions (I like Alfred) usually preserve such things. But my point is that if you don't know the notation derives from Chopin himself, you can't actually attribute it to Chopin. I'd be interested to see some examples from his MSS, actually, but I don't have any Chopin facsimiles. -- 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 ___ 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
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
On 5 Feb 2011 at 0:16, Steve Parker wrote: http://en.chopin.nifc.pl/institute/publications/facsimile I've seen plenty of examples of Chopin's hand, and lots of facsimiles, but I didn't know about this wonderful resource -- thanks for the URL! You've probably seen, but if not the above is examples of Chopin's hand. Not sure he would get work as a copyist... A pianist who is a friend owns (I think) all of the available facsimiles and every published edition that he can get of Chopin's entire output. A bit of a trainspotter but frequently fascinating. He also just about believes that Angela Lear is the only pianist worth hearing play Chopin. I'm away but will give proper examples when back home, but the kind of thing I mean is a minim on the first stem of three beamed quavers rather than a dotted crotchet. Wrong but perfectly clear and uncluttered. Some specific citations would be much more useful than a general assertion that what you suggest is there in the MSS. -- 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] dotted notes
As a performer, I find the second extremely confusing. It would not be a good sight read. I should think both notes would need dots. At 2/3/2011 10:26 AM, dc wrote: I don't assume it's kosher to have two voices with only one notehead (and two stems), with a dot that only applies to one note. But I don't seem to find any confirmation of this in my reference books. Would the proper solution be to move the dotted note to the right and have two noteheads, as here? http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15830163/dot.jpg But then what does one do when both noteheads need a dot, but the values are different, such as in the following case - a unison between two voices with a dotted 8th and a dotted quarter: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15830163/dots.jpg ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
The first looks perfectly clear to me. The second needs two noteheads with the stems lined up and a dot for each aligned vertically. Steve P. On 3 Feb 2011, at 15:26, dc den...@free.fr wrote: I don't assume it's kosher to have two voices with only one notehead (and two stems), with a dot that only applies to one note. But I don't seem to find any confirmation of this in my reference books. Would the proper solution be to move the dotted note to the right and have two noteheads, as here? http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15830163/dot.jpg But then what does one do when both noteheads need a dot, but the values are different, such as in the following case - a unison between two voices with a dotted 8th and a dotted quarter: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15830163/dots.jpg Thanks, Dennis ___ 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
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
I recently received my copy of Behind Bars, Elaine Gould's definitive guide to notation. She says that a dotted note and a note without a dot may share a single dotted notehead, unless this makes the rhythms ambiguous, in which case you should use separate noteheads. For the example you give, if it's a keyboard piece I think a shared notehead would be OK. But it's correct as you wrote it (you may also place the dotted notehead before the other one if you prefer). For your second example, Gould says that if both parts share the notehead, you only need one dot. If you have two noteheads, each one needs a dot. In cramped conditions the dots may be placed vertically one over the other in two different spaces, but otherwise it's better to separate the noteheads and put a dot after each notehead. For your example, I'd stay with the single notehead and single dot. Michael On 3 Feb 2011, at 16:26, dc wrote: I don't assume it's kosher to have two voices with only one notehead (and two stems), with a dot that only applies to one note. But I don't seem to find any confirmation of this in my reference books. Would the proper solution be to move the dotted note to the right and have two noteheads, as here? http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15830163/dot.jpg But then what does one do when both noteheads need a dot, but the values are different, such as in the following case - a unison between two voices with a dotted 8th and a dotted quarter: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15830163/dots.jpg Thanks, Dennis ___ 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
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
I think the two noteheads and dots are needed because the notes and dots don't mean the same as each other. The situation is different for an isolated bar than for a consistent rhythmic feature of the piece. Chopin for example often broke conventions rhythmically but was always elegantly clear. Steve P. On 3 Feb 2011, at 16:35, Florence + Michael launay-c...@gmx.net wrote: I recently received my copy of Behind Bars, Elaine Gould's definitive guide to notation. She says that a dotted note and a note without a dot may share a single dotted notehead, unless this makes the rhythms ambiguous, in which case you should use separate noteheads. For the example you give, if it's a keyboard piece I think a shared notehead would be OK. But it's correct as you wrote it (you may also place the dotted notehead before the other one if you prefer). For your second example, Gould says that if both parts share the notehead, you only need one dot. If you have two noteheads, each one needs a dot. In cramped conditions the dots may be placed vertically one over the other in two different spaces, but otherwise it's better to separate the noteheads and put a dot after each notehead. For your example, I'd stay with the single notehead and single dot. Michael On 3 Feb 2011, at 16:26, dc wrote: I don't assume it's kosher to have two voices with only one notehead (and two stems), with a dot that only applies to one note. But I don't seem to find any confirmation of this in my reference books. Would the proper solution be to move the dotted note to the right and have two noteheads, as here? http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15830163/dot.jpg But then what does one do when both noteheads need a dot, but the values are different, such as in the following case - a unison between two voices with a dotted 8th and a dotted quarter: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15830163/dots.jpg Thanks, Dennis ___ 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 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
I've been dipping into Gould's book since I received it about a week ago. I would certainly recommend it: I have found answers to almost all the questions I could think of, although sometimes it may not be immediately evident where to look. For unisons there are 14 different pages or page regions referenced in the index: in fact the second one led me to dotted unisons, which covers the questions you asked and more (what to do with dotted unisons on ledger lines, for instance). I don't have the courage to read the book from cover to cover, but I shall keep dipping in, either more or less at random or prompted by a particular question. I'll let you all know if I find anything that shocks me, or if I _don't_ find something that I think ought to be in there. For the moment I'm very impressed. Michael On 3 Feb 2011, at 18:05, dc wrote: Florence + Michael écrit: I recently received my copy of Behind Bars, Elaine Gould's definitive guide to notation. She says that a dotted note and a note without a dot may share a single dotted notehead, unless this makes the rhythms ambiguous, in which case you should use separate noteheads. For the example you give, if it's a keyboard piece I think a shared notehead would be OK. But it's correct as you wrote it (you may also place the dotted notehead before the other one if you prefer). For your second example, Gould says that if both parts share the notehead, you only need one dot. If you have two noteheads, each one needs a dot. In cramped conditions the dots may be placed vertically one over the other in two different spaces, but otherwise it's better to separate the noteheads and put a dot after each notehead. For your example, I'd stay with the single notehead and single dot. Many thanks, Michael. Would you recommend Gould's book? It seems to have answers to our questions! Dennis ___ 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
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
dc wrote: ... And I think having two noteheads would be more confusing and harder to read. I don't think there's a need for two noteheads in this situation, though if the time values were doubled, there obviously would be. However, if one were to decide to use two noteheads, I would be inclined to put the note with the longer duration, and its dot, after the note with the shorter, so that the fact that the rhythms of the two outer voices coincide is visibly indicated by the appearance on the page. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
The note with stem up needs to be before the note with stem down. I seem to be in a minority.. but to me the idea of two distinctly valued notes sharing a notehead is just bad. As far as I see the only decision to be made is wether you can neatly have the noteheads touching with the dots close enough OR wether to have the down-stemmed note after both the note and the dot. I think this second version is almost always preferable. Steve P. On 3 Feb 2011, at 17:10, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: dc wrote: ... And I think having two noteheads would be more confusing and harder to read. I don't think there's a need for two noteheads in this situation, though if the time values were doubled, there obviously would be. However, if one were to decide to use two noteheads, I would be inclined to put the note with the longer duration, and its dot, after the note with the shorter, so that the fact that the rhythms of the two outer voices coincide is visibly indicated by the appearance on the page. ns ___ 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
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
I just leafed through some of my piano music: Henle Urtext, Wiener Urtext, Bärenreiter and other renowned European publishers. Two different valued notes sharing a notehead is a common occurence: putting double noteheads in all those places would clutter up the music unnecessarily. Context is everything. I wouldn't do this on a part where two wind instruments share the same staff, for instance, but pianists are used to music written this way. Michael On 3 Feb 2011, at 22:22, Steve Parker wrote: The note with stem up needs to be before the note with stem down. I seem to be in a minority.. but to me the idea of two distinctly valued notes sharing a notehead is just bad. As far as I see the only decision to be made is wether you can neatly have the noteheads touching with the dots close enough OR wether to have the down-stemmed note after both the note and the dot. I think this second version is almost always preferable. Steve P. On 3 Feb 2011, at 17:10, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: dc wrote: ... And I think having two noteheads would be more confusing and harder to read. I don't think there's a need for two noteheads in this situation, though if the time values were doubled, there obviously would be. However, if one were to decide to use two noteheads, I would be inclined to put the note with the longer duration, and its dot, after the note with the shorter, so that the fact that the rhythms of the two outer voices coincide is visibly indicated by the appearance on the page. ns ___ 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 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
Have just looked through stuff too. It is indeed common. I shall dive out! Particularly 19th C. music often fudges this and strict rhythmic accuracy for the sake of clarity. Chopin constantly surprises in this respect. Editions of Bach etc., where melodic lines are distinct, have two noteheads. Steve P. On 3 Feb 2011, at 21:48, Florence + Michael wrote: I just leafed through some of my piano music: Henle Urtext, Wiener Urtext, Bärenreiter and other renowned European publishers. Two different valued notes sharing a notehead is a common occurence: putting double noteheads in all those places would clutter up the music unnecessarily. Context is everything. I wouldn't do this on a part where two wind instruments share the same staff, for instance, but pianists are used to music written this way. Michael On 3 Feb 2011, at 22:22, Steve Parker wrote: The note with stem up needs to be before the note with stem down. I seem to be in a minority.. but to me the idea of two distinctly valued notes sharing a notehead is just bad. As far as I see the only decision to be made is wether you can neatly have the noteheads touching with the dots close enough OR wether to have the down-stemmed note after both the note and the dot. I think this second version is almost always preferable. Steve P. On 3 Feb 2011, at 17:10, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: dc wrote: ... And I think having two noteheads would be more confusing and harder to read. I don't think there's a need for two noteheads in this situation, though if the time values were doubled, there obviously would be. However, if one were to decide to use two noteheads, I would be inclined to put the note with the longer duration, and its dot, after the note with the shorter, so that the fact that the rhythms of the two outer voices coincide is visibly indicated by the appearance on the page. ns ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
I should have learnt.. I'll change this to: The editions I have to hand Steve P. ;-) On 3 Feb 2011, at 22:21, Steve Parker wrote: Editions of Bach etc., where melodic lines are distinct, have two noteheads. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
At 10:48 PM +0100 2/3/11, Florence + Michael wrote: Context is everything. I wouldn't do this on a part where two wind instruments share the same staff, for instance, but pianists are used to music written this way. I'm not sure why it would make a difference for wind instruments. Certainly we strings are used to seeing shared noteheads. And orchestral 1st 2nd trombone parts often share the same staff without even using separated stems, as long as the rhythms are similar. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] dotted notes
I have some facsimiles, but good editions (I like Alfred) usually preserve such things. Steve P. On 3 Feb 2011, at 22:50, David W. Fenton wrote: I have to ask what you're basing this on? Facsimiles of Chopin's autographs? Modern critical editions? The first editions? If it's anything other than Chopin's own MSS, I hesitate to attribute the notation to Chopin ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dotted notes getting changed to ties
Unclick the box rebar music? before you hit OK. Christopher On Wed Jun 9, at WednesdayJun 9 9:52 AM, Peter A. Day wrote: In Finale 2008, dotted notes are being changed to tied notes within the same measure after changing the meter. Is there a setting that I can change to prevent this? Thanks, Peter A. Day 12 Morgan Drive Hooksett, NH 03106-1633 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Dotted notes getting changed to ties
Thanks Christopher, That works, but if I am reducing the number of beats in a measure, then the extras are out in no-man's land, rather than being put into a new measure of their own. Is there a way to get them back? I am working on Byzantine chant, un-metered, so I input the notes and then organize the measure lengths into textual units. With rebar=on and measure region=through end of piece all the measures rebar nicely. Thanks again. Peter -Original Message- From: finale-boun...@shsu.edu [mailto:finale-boun...@shsu.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher Smith Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 10:14 AM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Dotted notes getting changed to ties Unclick the box rebar music? before you hit OK. Christopher On Wed Jun 9, at WednesdayJun 9 9:52 AM, Peter A. Day wrote: In Finale 2008, dotted notes are being changed to tied notes within the same measure after changing the meter. Is there a setting that I can change to prevent this? Thanks, ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dotted notes getting changed to ties
When you rebar music, it always adopts Finale's default beat divisions, according to the metre. If you change the metre into Composite... then enter something like 1 beat unit on top, then however many beats you need in EDUs (1024 EDUs per quarter note, or 4096 per whole note; you'll have to do some manual addition) then the note divisions will always be as long as possible. This still isn't what you want (unchanged) but it might be closer. Christopher On Wed Jun 9, at WednesdayJun 9 10:58 AM, Peter A. Day wrote: Thanks Christopher, That works, but if I am reducing the number of beats in a measure, then the extras are out in no-man's land, rather than being put into a new measure of their own. Is there a way to get them back? I am working on Byzantine chant, un-metered, so I input the notes and then organize the measure lengths into textual units. With rebar=on and measure region=through end of piece all the measures rebar nicely. Thanks again. Peter -Original Message- From: finale-boun...@shsu.edu [mailto:finale-boun...@shsu.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher Smith Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 10:14 AM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Dotted notes getting changed to ties Unclick the box rebar music? before you hit OK. Christopher On Wed Jun 9, at WednesdayJun 9 9:52 AM, Peter A. Day wrote: In Finale 2008, dotted notes are being changed to tied notes within the same measure after changing the meter. Is there a setting that I can change to prevent this? Thanks, ___ 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
Re: [Finale] Dotted notes preferences?
Jari Williamsson wrote: Let's say you have these tied note durations: quarter-eight-sixteenth You allowed to use one dotted note - where would you use the dot? To create a dotted quarter or as a dotted eight? Would you use the same rule if were half-quarter-eight pattern? Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale For me it would depend on the meter. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dotted notes preferences?
Leigh Daniels wrote: Just curious: do the dotted versions scan better than the tied versions? I get requests from players to replace dots with ties. **Leigh I think that there isn't an easy answer to Leigh's question. Certainly dotted halves can't be presenting problems for people beyond the 3rd or 4th lesson as a beginner. And dotted quarters should be common enough for people. The use of dots which obscure the middle of the measure or which obscure beats in syncopated rhythms can cause problems. Lots of times I'll be transcribing a work which may have Q, dotted-Q, 8th, Q in 4/4 and I'll enter it as Q, Q-tied-to-8th-beamed-to-8th, Q so that it's easy to see where beat 3 starts. One other place in simple meter where I'll often eliminate the dotted note is 8th, dotted-Q. If I were to get many requests from players to replace dots with ties and I were to continue to write/arrange music for that same group of musicians, I'd bow to their requests. On the other hand, if it were a couple of random and isolated requests I wouldn't worry about it -- there are some people who just don't want to think beyond 1, 2, 3, 4. :-) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dotted notes preferences?
Definitely quarter + dotted eighth. (When a beat contains sixteenth subdivisions, I generally try to show the beginning of the beat.) And yes, definitely half + dotted quarter for the second example. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 22 Dec 2007, at 3:19 PM, Jari Williamsson wrote: Let's say you have these tied note durations: quarter-eight-sixteenth You allowed to use one dotted note - where would you use the dot? To create a dotted quarter or as a dotted eight? Would you use the same rule if were half-quarter-eight pattern? Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ 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
Re: [Finale] Dotted notes preferences?
At 06:19 PM 12/22/2007, Jari Williamsson wrote: Let's say you have these tied note durations: quarter-eight-sixteenth You allowed to use one dotted note - where would you use the dot? To create a dotted quarter or as a dotted eight? Would you use the same rule if were half-quarter-eight pattern? What Darcy said. Quarter+dotted eighth, and half+dotted quarter. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dotted notes preferences?
Leigh Daniels wrote: Just curious: do the dotted versions scan better than the tied versions? I get requests from players to replace dots with ties. **Leigh Depends on what you're used to, and how much practice you have at both/either. I prefer dots myself, but some people don't see them often enough to be comfortable with them. cd On Sat, Dec 22, 2007, Lee Actor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quarter-dotted eighth scans much better than dotted quarter-sixteenth. The second case is not quite so clear-cut, but I still think half-dotted quarter is preferable (I assume these are 4/4 meter). -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/dershem/# http://members.cox.net/dershem ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
