On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Don Simons wrote: > I put in the F option at Werner's request, because Bach used it somewhere > and Werner wanted to reproduce Bach's rhythmic notation. I've never come > across it in any other context. I respect Bach a great deal, but in fact the > F notation is ambiguous and unnecessary. What rhythm is really intended, for > example by a44x3F a ? Is the shorter note to be 1/2 or 1/3 the length of > the longer one? PMX has unambiguous notations for both of those: a44x3D a > and a84.a . I suppose the shorter note might be intended to be 1/5 the > duration of the longer one, and PMX doesn't have a special notation for > that, but that's pretty far-fetched.
Werner and I wanted that feature for the Urtext edition of the Kunst der Fuge. As Don states, the notation is obsolete and ambiguous and is not recommended for use. The reason we wanted it is its very ambiguity. Since Urtext means as close as possible to the original, we did not want to `interprete' the text by converting it to modern notation. Unfortunately, one cannot evade some interpretation. In Bach's original notation the punctuated note is clearly aligned with the third note of the triolet, while pmx normally aligns it after the third note. That was the reason why Werner wanted it. He did not live to have it introduced into the Kunst der Fuge; I introduced it posthumously as Don made the feature available. By no means, this feature is recommended for use in modern notation. Christof _______________________________________________ TeX-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://icking-music-archive.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
