On 8 May 2006 at 12:19, John Howell wrote: > At 10:25 AM +0200 5/8/06, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > >On 07.05.2006 Kim Patrick Clow wrote: > >>Just was wondering if this looks ok. Here's a screenshot: > >> > >>http://www.bytenet.net/kpclow/finale/dynamics-figured.jpg > > I like the looks of this page and the placement of the figures very > much. Given that the realization is always above the bass note, the > placement above the bass note makes intuitive sense.
Er, what realization? And aren't the figures *below* the bass? > >Just one more thing about your screen shot: Are you sure the note > >values of the grace notes are correct (ie as they are in your > >source)? Not impossible, by any means, only not very logical, and if > >this is similar for the whole piece it would indicate that the > >original copyist or publisher did not care at all about them. > > The alternation of 16th note appoggiaturas with 8th note > appoggiaturas? I find them quite clear, and of course if this is > Stamitz I would expect them to be appoggiaturas and NOT 19th century > grace notes. The cadential appoggiaturas, in particular, would guide > me in this. The 8th-note appoggiatura on the downbeat of the third measure surely can't be right if the 16th-note appoggiature in the corresponding figure of the first measure is correct. I can't think of any actual meaning for the switch of 8th for 16th in the two measures (it also occurs on the next beat, but in the opposite direction). I'm with Johannes on this one -- it looks inconsistent for no meaningful reason. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
