On Nov 30, 2005, at 1:07 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
I use reduced-size notation to indicate editorial additions, and it
would be useful to be able to extend this convention to the above
elements.
I am surprised that augmentation dots and beams on notes are not
reduced in size along with the notes that you reduced. Are you sure
that they AREN'T reduced already? How did you reduce the notation to
start with?
Christopher
The special reductions I want are to indicate that the composer
notated two 8th notes (e.g.) but they should have been 16ths, or that
he failed to include a required augmentation dot. These are both very
common MS errors.
In the first case, the 8th note beam is correct, but the second beam
is editorial, and in the second case the notehead is correct, but the
dot is editorial.
Especially for big scores such as symphonies, I try to keep the
critical report as compact as possible, and I do this by including as
much editorial info as possible in the body of the score itself. If I
don't have, say, a thin subsidiary beam, then I have to critically
report the altered note values which that beam represents.
I understand now, though I think I might completely miss the
distinction between a smaller augmentation dot and a normal-sized one,
or else miss the dot entirely if it was small enough to make the
distinction.
Moving it over the notehead and adding the smaller one as a note
expression might be your best bet, I would think.
Christopher
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
