On 08.05.2006 David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, of course. But even if it's drawn directly from the original
source, both surely can't be correct -- I can't see an interpretation
of the differing rhythmic values that would make any sense.
No, but I'd like to leave this to the performer.
A few weeks ago I bought score and parts for a Telemann Overture, only
to discover that the editor had changed the notation in the slow section
to double dotted qarter notes. The edition was published in the 70s, and
I am sure the editor really believed he was doing the right thing, but
for my purposes this was a disaster (took me many hours to correct it
with tip-ex). Who knows, perhaps in a few years someone discovers
something radical about grace notes, and what we today believe to be an
error turns out to give us important clues as to how to perform them. I
don't want future performers to curse my editions like I did with this
Moeseler publication.
> The problem with grace note length is that some composers try to be
> very consistent, . . .
The problem is, of course (and this is something I know you know
perfectly well), that the source may be several layers removed from
the composer's intention, with one or more additional layers of
intervention, intentional and accidental, from copyists and
engravers. A copyist who is trained not to pay attention to
consistency of appoggiatura length can easily corrupt a very
consistent composer's text.
As is probably the case in the majority of 18th century editions.
> . . . and it seems to me that some, if not many, were
> indicating the more or less exact length they want them to be (CPE
> Bach reports that as a new practice, and it seems to make a lot of
> sense, eg in the Mozart string quartets, contrary to what the NMA is
> trying to suggest in certain cases).
The NMA is so completely wrong on so many of these issues that I'd
almost take the statement of editorial principles as a directive for
what *not* to do.
> Of course I am aware that there was not always difference between a
> slashed 8th grace note and a 16th grace note in print, so no need to
> discuss this.
I would go so far as to say there is *never* a difference, as a
slashed 8th note is simply an alternate notation for a 16th note (one
flag plus as many slashes as necessary to indicate the number of
additional flags that modern printed notation would use).
Well, the problem is that it is sometimes difficult to decide from when
on there was a difference. I have certainly seen late 18th century
editions which used both slashed and 16th grace notes, and although they
were not always consistent, they mostly made sense as being different.
The "slash" only acquired an independent meaning in the 19th century,
with the invention of the concept of what we now call the "grace
note." And in that concept, there was little if any consistent
rhythmic meaning to it at all.
Well, from what I have seen, I am not sure whether this is completely
true. I can say that in an edition dating from 1806 there was certainly
a difference, paired with a lot of inconsistency. (Sorry, can't tell you
what it was.)
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
