<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Repeat sign in 17th-century editions
> David W. Fenton écrit:
> >You said 1640, right? Is it a tempo marking (a variant spelling of
> >adagio)?
>
> Yes, a tempo marking meaning "adagi
On 2 Jun 2004 at 22:10, d. collins wrote:
> David W. Fenton écrit:
> >Also, another
> >oddity is the word "ada??o" above the beginning of the Alleluia.
> >Nothing is coming to mind on that at the moment (it clearly doesn't
> >belong to the text of the line above it).
>
> adasio
>
> It also appe
On 2 Jun 2004 at 20:48, d. collins wrote:
> David W. Fenton écrit:
> >But that does not mean that we absolutely know that Dennis's source
> >is part of the same tradition -- Johannes may be drawing on practices
> >in a repertory that are wholly irrelevant.
>
> First of all, I want to thank all of
d. collins wrote:
David W. Fenton écrit:
But that does not mean that we absolutely know that Dennis's source
is part of the same tradition -- Johannes may be drawing on practices
in a repertory that are wholly irrelevant.
First of all, I want to thank all of you who replied to my query -
David,
On 02.06.2004 1:50 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote
>> Yes, but Johannes is not evaluating in the abstract. He's evaluating
>> based on comparison with similar markings in a large sample of other
>> scores of the same era.
>
> But that does not mean that we absolutely know that Dennis's source
> is pa
On 02.06.2004 1:34 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote
>> I repeat, I am assuming there is no error. And yes, I know my stuff.
>
> There *is* an error -- in the interpetation of the meaning of :||: --
> you are saying that it doesn't mean the same thing in these sources
> as it does in modern editions.
S
On 1 Jun 2004 at 16:42, Mark D Lew wrote:
>
> On Jun 1, 2004, at 2:42 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > In the abstract, I just don't think there's any way to make any such
> > determination with any certainty.
>
> Yes, but Johannes is not evaluating in the abstract. He's evaluating
> based on
On Jun 1, 2004, at 2:42 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
In the abstract, I just don't think there's any way to make any such
determination with any certainty.
Yes, but Johannes is not evaluating in the abstract. He's evaluating
based on comparison with similar markings in a large sample of other
scor
Johannes is right on the money on this question. Repeat signs were
not used in the modern way with any consistency before the 19th
century. It's covered well in Robert Donnington, "The Interpretation
of Early Music." The only "interpretation" involved is studying how
the signs were used AT T
On 2 Jun 2004 at 0:22, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> On 01.06.2004 23:42 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote
>
> >> I am pretty sure there is no ambiguity in this case, and section C
> >> is not supposed to be repeated. If it was then this would be a
> >> copying mistake. Naturally such mistakes occur, so if
On 01.06.2004 23:42 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote
>> I am pretty sure there is no ambiguity in this case, and section C is
>> not supposed to be repeated. If it was then this would be a copying
>> mistake. Naturally such mistakes occur, so if it makes no sense
>> without the C section repeat then thi
On 1 Jun 2004 at 20:26, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> On 01.06.2004 19:20 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote
>
> > It's clear to me that for the A section, there should be a repeat
> > (leaving out the starting ||: is common well into the 19th century),
> > but not so clear about the C section. I'd make my d
On 01.06.2004 19:20 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote
> It's clear to me that for the A section, there should be a repeat
> (leaving out the starting ||: is common well into the 19th century),
> but not so clear about the C section. I'd make my decision based on
> balance -- if the 3 sections are of comp
On 01.06.2004 17:34 Uhr, d. collins wrote
> In an Italian print of the 1640s, I have a piece in 3 sections with 2
> (double) repeat signs:
>
> A :||: B :||: C ||
>
> I'm wondering what exactly is to be repeated, and whether these signs have
> the same meaning as their modern equivalents. The rea
On 1 Jun 2004 at 17:34, d. collins wrote:
> In an Italian print of the 1640s, I have a piece in 3 sections with 2
> (double) repeat signs:
>
> A :||: B :||: C ||
>
> I'm wondering what exactly is to be repeated, and whether these signs
> have the same meaning as their modern equivalents. The rea
15 matches
Mail list logo
