Hello everyone, Thanks for all the interest and responses. I am not dealing with Western music, just trying to use the Western notation as a tool. So, the standard performance practices and the extent of the knowledge of the performer of a particular period in Western music may not be necessarily relevant. As I pointed out earlier, this music has never been accurately notated. It has been only performed by pure improvisation for about 80 years (since the introduction of piano in Persian music). I am trying to come up with a way to make it accessible to the Western trained musicians, in particular pianists, as well as enriching the piano repertoire for Persian pianists who have not been trained to improvise in this style. It is however, very important that I find the closest symbol for the many ornaments in question, even though they may not be executed in the same manner in Western music. I experimented with the slashed notehead in the attachment I sent earlier, in the RH, on the 2nd to the last 16th note of measures 1,3,13,17, and 19. (By the way, it is not a rolled chord.) I have tried this notation on American pianists as well as my students. When I write it as a grace note (slashed or unslashed!), they all play it before the note, not at the same time as the main note. Hence the idea of notating two notes as a chord with the slash through the one to be released quickly (unlike in Baroque, it is always the higher note). I respect and trust the knowledge of the list and wanted to learn your reaction and opinions on this subject and am very open to your ideas. gka
----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 4:59 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] Acciaccatura > On 26 May 2004 at 14:15, Andrew Stiller wrote: > > > > > An acciacatura differs from a rolled chord in that it contains an > > >> additional, dissonant note that unlike the chord itself is not > > >> sustained beyond the completion of the roll. (Technically, the > > >> acciacatura consists only of the dissonant note itself, not the > > >> chord into which it is introduced.) > > > > > >But the slash does not exclusively indicate anything but the rolled > > >chord. The added dissonance is not implied by that symbol itself, but > > >by the context. > > > > Well, like everything else in Bq. notation, this varied among > > different composers, times, places, but in, for example, the WTC, a > > slashed chord means an acciacatura, while a plain rolled chord is > > indicated w. a vertical wavy line, as today. Similarly in Couperin, > > for example. > > Well, you've changed the context I was citing, which was in Mozart, > where there is no wavy line for a rolled chord, only the slash. > > -- > David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton > David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
