On Friday 28 December 2007 12:12:01 Bob Tennent wrote:
> Hi all. It's not every day one gets a chance to correct a mistake by
> JSB! I sent a colleague a link to Bach's "Explication":
>
> http://icking-music-archive.org/scores/bach/explica.pdf
>
> He pointed out that the last two examples don't "add up". This is not
> the fault of Jean-Pierre Coulon, who faithfully typeset Bach's notes:
>
> http://www.jsbach.net/images/ornaments.jpg
>
> But now the question for you is: what did Bach *intend* to write? My
> colleague thought the first note should be shortened, but my opinion is
> that that note is an appogiatura and should take half the apparent note
> value; rather, the four "trill" notes should be 64ths instead of 32nds.
> What say all of you?
>
> Bob T.
I think that the likelihood is that 64ths would not be playable, or at least
they are not consistent with the other explications. OTOH I agree that the
first note is an appoggiatura and therefore half. That leaves the rest a
sextuplet. daveA
--
Playing "as written" is paying attention, not being a fanatic.
DGT: The only exercises best for all guitarists. Visit
http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html. Original easy solos at:
http://www.openguitar.com. :::=={_o) David Raleigh Arnold
_______________________________________________
TeX-music mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.daimi.au.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
