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 this can be corrected, with a >> footnote or similar. > > The :||: is a copying error in your interpration -- you're just > choosing between which indication you're calling an error. >
No, that is not my interpretation at all. You completely misunderstood. The :||: is not a copying error at all. It is simply a standard sign for the right end of a repeated section. It _can_ also exist between two repeated sections, but on it's own it is unlikely to mean that the following section is to be repeated, unless there is an ending repeat sign at the end of this section. There are other mss which do have single-sided repeat signs, but more often you will find the double sign. (It's similar to the use of flats instead of naturals, there is also no interpretation, even so naturals did exist.) Take it as you like, but I am absolutely sure of this, playing from 17th and 18th manuscripts is my daily job, and I know these things. It has got very little to do with interpretation. >> But in 99% of all cases I have seen this simply means that C is not >> supposed to be repeated. > > I don't see what evidence there is to support such a strong > statement. > Then you haven't seen many 17th century mss/editions that contain repeats. I have got several in front of me where there is absolutely no question of what is meant. Now, I know you are going to ask for an example: Here is one that is readily available, and where there is no question of any errors: Corelli, Concerto grosso op.6/9 (Walsh edition), Minuetto notated as A :||: B :||: B2 || C || A :||: B :||: B2 || The B2 sections are petite reprises, and the double repeat sign before it happens in every part and both times. That's about 15 times total, hardly an error. It is absolutely impossible that this should be repeated, since it's already the repeat of a repeat. There is no interpretation in this one. It's not an error, just the standard use of the double repeat sign. This kind of thing happens in almost every Concerto. It also happens in many other editions or manuscripts. > You're assuming the copying error is in the :||: and not in the lack > of an ending repeat. While that is certainly completely plausible, > the actual resolution of the choice between the two interpretations > of the error will depend on a number of issues, not least of which is > the genre of the piece in question. I repeat, I am assuming there is no error. And yes, I know my stuff. > > In the abstract, I just don't think there's any way to make any such > determination with any certainty. Because you obviously don't know. Sorry, David, I don't want to be harsh, but a lot of rubbish has come out of this kind of "interpretation". Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
