I find that sometimes questionable practices end up becoming the norm
simply because some big name did it.
I find nothing clear about having things collide with accidentals, and
would personally hesitate to do it. But Bartok was a meticulous
composer and one would imagine he checked the proofs
I'll add:
What European Boosey did for Bartok in the 1920s (or whenever) with one
metal-plate engraver has really nothing to do with what the NY office does
with different tools for different composers in the 2000s, and there's a
good chance their editor didn't really care about this subtlety as lo
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:58:39 -0400, "Tim Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> In my own practice, I stop the line short of the accidental, because it
> works, and is clean (in my opinion), but my opinion may not be that of
> a publisher such as Boosey and Hawkes--and obviously, Bartok had a
> g
Steve Fiskum:
I was just trying to find out the advantage of this practice and not
start a feud. Sorry if I offended you.
I would like to hear what people have to say about this practice.
David Horne gave his opinion...what do other people think?
And also:
What is the advantage of this practic
This conversation begs the question of whether glisses even *should*
avoid accis. In my editions of Bartok String Quartets, the glisses
always pierce the noteheads, acci or no. I have actually added
extensions to my custom lines to force them to do this, accis be
damned.
This is one of the mai
In my own practice, I stop the line short of the accidental, because it
works, and is clean (in my opinion), but my opinion may not be that of
a publisher such as Boosey and Hawkes--and obviously, Bartok had a
great deal of influence in the final result. Music typesetting has
always been evolv
Hello Robert,
I was just trying to find out the advantage of this practice and not start a feud.
Sorry if I offended you.
I would like to hear what people have to say about this practice. David Horne gave his
opinion...what do other people think?
And also:
What is the advantage of this practi
First of all, check out the examples I cited before you knock it. (Bartok's 3rd
Quartet is chock full of nearly every situation you can imagine.) Just because the
lines pierce the noteheads does not mean they obscure the accis.
Secondly, I find (for myself) that my intuitive sense of what ought
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:29:38 +, "Robert Patterson Finale"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This conversation begs the question of whether glisses even *should*
> avoid accis. In my editions of Bartok String Quartets, the glisses always
> pierce the noteheads, acci or no. I have actually added extens
Le 29/09/03 12:04, "Fiskum, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:
> What is the advantage of this to the end user? Why muddy an accidental with a
> line when placing the line before the accidental gets the point accross and
> (IMHO) retains a clean page? I can see where this would just clutter the p
> From: Robert Patterson
>
> This conversation begs the question of whether glisses even *should* avoid accis. In
> my editions of Bartok String Quartets, the glisses always pierce the noteheads, acci
> or no. I have actually added extensions to my custom lines to force them to do this,
This conversation begs the question of whether glisses even *should* avoid accis. In
my editions of Bartok String Quartets, the glisses always pierce the noteheads, acci
or no. I have actually added extensions to my custom lines to force them to do this,
accis be damned.
Augmentation dots are a
12 matches
Mail list logo
