John Howell asserted, in part:
chant notation--without rhythmic significance (although modern
scholars do not agree on this)--continued in use for free chant.
but I would note that my investigations do not support the position that
chant notation did not have rhythmic significance. I have a spe
John, whey you write:
A given thing is possible or it isn't. With movable type, beaming was
not possible. With manuscript it was. But the choice of whether to
USE something that is possible depends on tradition, training, and
fashion.
I don't know the basis upon which you assert that beaming
On Apr 28, 2005, at 2:55 PM, John Howell wrote:
With movable type, beaming was not possible.
Actually, it was and is, as numerous publications attest. The
typographic principles involved are reflected to this day in
music-in-text fonts such as MetTimes.
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http
On Apr 28, 2005, at 2:34 PM, John Howell wrote:
True, the ligatures had taken on rhythmic significance for a rather short time, in the rhythmic modal notation of the Parisian musicians in the late 12th and early 13th centuries, but from about the mid-13th century Franconian mensural notation (and
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Owain Sutton
writes:
>While semiminims (ie quavers, 8th notes) are recognisable to us today,
>their original context means that the flags are more than adequate to
>highlight them - only with subsequent centurys of migration to shorter
>note values did flags and st
Ken Moore wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Owain Sutton
writes:
While semiminims (ie quavers, 8th notes) are recognisable to us today,
their original context means that the flags are more than adequate to
highlight them - only with subsequent centurys of migration to shorter
note values di
On 28 Apr 2005 at 14:34, John Howell wrote:
> the ligatures had taken on rhythmic significance for a rather
> short time, in the rhythmic modal notation of the Parisian musicians
> in the late 12th and early 13th centuries, but from about the mid-13th
> century Franconian mensural notation (and i
At 9:34 PM -0400 4/27/05, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 27 Apr 2005 at 17:33, John Howell wrote:
The actual engraving of music--technical use of the term here,
meaning the use of a sharp steel engraving tool to "write" the music,
backwards, on a soft copper plate--dates from the 17th century, and
s
At 2:22 PM -0400 4/28/05, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Apr 27, 2005, at 5:33 PM, John Howell wrote:
The first printed polyphonic music shows up in the early 16th
century, 1501 in Venice, to be exact. This was music printed from
movable type, which means that each piece of type had a single note
sha
On Apr 27, 2005, at 5:33 PM, John Howell wrote:
The first printed polyphonic music shows up in the early 16th century,
1501 in Venice, to be exact. This was music printed from movable
type, which means that each piece of type had a single note shape or a
single rest shape on it. So beaming was
On 27 Apr 2005 at 22:56, Christopher Smith wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2005, at 9:34 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
> > Why are you limiting your discussion to printed music? Manuscript
> > music of the 17th and 18th centuries continues to use the practice
> > you seem to be arguing was created as a resul
On Apr 27, 2005, at 9:34 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Why are you limiting your discussion to printed music? Manuscript
music of the 17th and 18th centuries continues to use the practice
you seem to be arguing was created as a result of using movable type.
And now some computer-engraved music follows
At 11:38 PM +0100 4/27/05, Owain Sutton wrote:
John Howell wrote:
The first printed polyphonic music shows up in the early 16th
century, 1501 in Venice, to be exact. This was music printed from
movable type, which means that each piece of type had a single note
shape or a single rest shape on i
On 27 Apr 2005 at 17:33, John Howell wrote:
> The actual engraving of music--technical use of the term here,
> meaning the use of a sharp steel engraving tool to "write" the music,
> backwards, on a soft copper plate--dates from the 17th century, and
> since the engraver was literally drawing the
Owain Sutton wrote:
And my other point - Petrucci did use ligatures, although he made the
pragmatic decision to limit it to two-note ligatures. This was within
the reasonable bounds of the extra pieces of type necessary, whereas
three-note ligatures would entail hundreds of new pieces.
Oh, an
John Howell wrote:
The first printed polyphonic music shows up in the early 16th century,
1501 in Venice, to be exact. This was music printed from movable type,
which means that each piece of type had a single note shape or a single
rest shape on it. So beaming was physically impossible and it
At 12:30 PM -0400 4/27/05, Jacki Barineau wrote:
Before I go any further in correcting the rest of the song, could y'all tell
me if this is correct now? The only other thing I wasn't sure about is the
beaming - when to and when not to in vocals... Seems like there's some rule
about not beaming if
Taris L Flashpaw wrote, with respect to the practice of beaming choral
or vocal music to syllables:
That's older practice. Modern practice is to beam it as you would
instrumental music, regardless of syllables.
but I would note that what Taris describes as "Modern Practice" is by no
means unive
Jacki,
The beaming is now correct.
However, the music is still unnecessarily difficult to read because
your spacing is quite distorted. For instance, m.33 beat 2, it looks
like there is almost *more* space between the two sixteenth notes than
there is between the eighth note and the sixteenth n
That's older practice. Modern practice is to beam it as you would
instrumental music, regardless of syllables. Use slurs to mark the
syllables, but beam to show the beats. There's nothing I hate more as a
singer than looking at a page of old music and seeing a mass of un-beamed
notes. Twelve mi
Thanks a bunch, everyone, for the "bad news"! I'd rather know what's wrong
than continue to notate incorrectly! I just feel so "rusty" on all this -
it was over 20 years ago that I was in college as a composition major, and
I'm really just now getting back into serious notating! So I appreciate
At 10:47 PM -0400 4/26/05, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Jacki,
I hate to the bearer of bad news, but both examples in your snapshot
are wrong.
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
I have to agree with Darcy 100%, Jacki. Example 1 looks like a
student's first attempt to notate rhythms taken
On Apr 26, 2005, at 10:47 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Jacki,
I hate to the bearer of bad news,
But on the other hand, there IS some good news.
Darcy and I agree on a point of notation!
Aren't you happy?
8-)=)
(BIG cookie-eating grin)
Christopher
___
Fin
Jacki,
I hate to the bearer of bad news, but both examples in your snapshot
are wrong.
Staff 2 is closer to being correct, but the pairs of tied sixteenths
beginning on beats 3.25 of m.1 and beats 2.25 and 3.25 should be
written as eighths. The tied eighth-sixteen pair on beat 3.25, m.1
shoul
Boy, it looks like I really stirred things up with my question about
suspended chords, etc.!! Hope this one is more straightforward!
I was wondering which is the proper way to notate syncopated rhythms for
vocals... Whether, for example, it's better to use all 16th's and tie the
syncopated notes
25 matches
Mail list logo
