John Poole [Finale Discussion] wrote:
Could you clarify which of Garner Read's books you are citing to?
I am aware of six books he has written and suspect you are referencing
the book entitled "Source Book of Proposed Music Notation Reforms"
[I'm quoting since underline/italics is not available].
Jari Williamsson wrote:
d. collins wrote:
I have two tied notes followed by a third note: should the slur ending
on the third note start on the first or the second of the tied notes.
FWIW, both Garner Read (page 267) and Kurt Ross (page 141) mentions a
tie not covered completely by the slur as "
On 24 Oct 2004, at 05:03 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I just looked up a couple of volumes from the Mozart complete edition
at random, and they consistently start the slur on the second note of
two tied over notes. I think the problem is that both Read and Ross
follow a early 20th century traditi
I think this is a good decision, in line with most (European)
publications of this sort and this day. I would almost certainly do the
same.
Johannes
d. collins wrote:
Thanks to all for the valuable advice, and in particular to Johannes for
explaining both options in this situation.
The source
I don't think there is a distinction, though. I have never seen an
edition where the two are mixed.
Johannes
d. collins wrote:
Jari Williamsson écrit:
FWIW, both Garner Read (page 267) and Kurt Ross (page 141) mentions a
tie not covered completely by the slur as "incorrect". But of course
this
I just looked up a couple of volumes from the Mozart complete edition at
random, and they consistently start the slur on the second note of two
tied over notes. I think the problem is that both Read and Ross follow a
early 20th century tradition. From that point of view they are both
correct. H
d. collins wrote:
I have two tied notes followed by a third note: should the slur ending
on the third note start on the first or the second of the tied notes.
FWIW, both Garner Read (page 267) and Kurt Ross (page 141) mentions a
tie not covered completely by the slur as "incorrect". But of course
John Howell wrote:
At 9:58 PM +0200 10/23/04, d. collins wrote:
I have two tied notes followed by a third note: should the slur ending
on the third note start on the first or the second of the tied notes.
And a related question: if one uses so-called "European" ties that
look like slurs and a no
At 9:58 PM +0200 10/23/04, d. collins wrote:
I have two tied notes followed by a third note: should the slur
ending on the third note start on the first or the second of the
tied notes.
And a related question: if one uses so-called "European" ties that
look like slurs and a note has both a tie
On Oct 23, 2004, at 1:55 PM, dhbailey wrote:
The slur should begin with the first of the two tied notes.
The tie should remain close enough to the notehead so as not to leave
an unsightly gap, and the slur ending would be moved slightly
vertically so as not to overlap the tie.
In my opinion.
Tha
dhbailey wrote:
d. collins wrote:
I have two tied notes followed by a third note: should the slur ending
on the third note start on the first or the second of the tied notes.
The slur should begin with the first of the two tied notes.
I don't think there are any grounds for a generalization here
d. collins wrote:
I have two tied notes followed by a third note: should the slur ending
on the third note start on the first or the second of the tied notes.
And a related question: if one uses so-called "European" ties that look
like slurs and a note has both a tie and a slur starting (or endi
d. collins wrote:
I have two tied notes followed by a third note: should the slur ending
on the third note start on the first or the second of the tied notes.
That depends. 18th and early 19th century tradition in prints is usually
to have the slur start on the second note. Later 19th and early 2
13 matches
Mail list logo
