On 07.11.2005 David W. Fenton wrote:
>I'd have to agree with this.
Why would one keep the beam breaks and then discard most of the
reversed beams? How do you know you're not discarding potentially
useful musical information?
Well, it is quite obvious to me that beam breaks can mean something.
They often do. They often don't.
I have seen a lot of 18th century sources, both ms and print. I honestly
do not believe that reversed beams have any meaning at all. They are
simply an aesthetic difference. In looks, not in the music.
The Mozart example you showed is a good example why reversed beaming
does not work in modern editions. I actually find your example very
badly readable, and it looks completely unacceptable to me in a modern
edition context.
In 18th century sources reversed beams can happen (and are likely to
happen) whenever there is a larger leap within a beamed group. That's
all there is to it, imo.
YMMV
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
