On 2 Jun 2004 at 0:22, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > 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.)
It is not similar at all. > 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. No, it is, indeed, an interpretation on your part, an assumption that the meaning of the sign :||: has changed. > >> 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. You have musical evidence to show you that this is the case. No dispute there. > This kind of thing happens in almost every Concerto. It also happens > in many other editions or manuscripts. I was under the impression that Dennis's source was 17th-century vocal, but I'm not sure where I got that idea. > > 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. There *is* an error -- in the interpetation of the meaning of :||: -- you are saying that it doesn't mean the same thing in these sources as it does in modern editions. > > 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". I think you're vastly overstating your case. And there were great differences in different repertories and different copying/printing traditions, even when they were contemporary. You cannot necessarily transfer knowledge of the practices in the repertory you are familiar with to every other repertory. For Dennis to answer the question, he would need to determine if the sources in the repertory he is transcribing do indeed conform to the practices you describe. That can only be decided by musical evidence, since the sources themselves use symbols that can't possibly be interpreted as anything other than erroneous if read in their modern meaning. How many times have I heard musicians say that things don't need to be repeated, that the repeat signs were just pro forma, and not really meant to be taken literally? I hear this all the time in all kinds of repertory from all periods, and in regard to sources that are simply not ambiguous. So I have something of a problem with a blanket declaration that sources that clearly are internally inconsistent in their use of repeat signs are always to be treated in the way you say. You may say it's cant on my part to suggest a repeat, but I didn't do any such thing -- I said you'd have to look at the musical content to decide if a repeat was likely intended. -- 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
