On May 9, 2006, at 3:52 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 09.05.2006 Darcy James Argue wrote:
Please forgive my ignorance, as I am certain you have excellent
reasons for doing what you did -- but I must admit, I have never seen
this notation before (especially your elegant solution to m.14). I'm
intrigued by your decision-making process. If you don't mind
enlightening me: why couldn't the displaced notes in mm. 9, 14, & 15
have shared a stem with the upper or lower note of the same duration?
Because the manuscript doesn't do that.
It's the same kind of notation as is used in any better critical
edition of the Bach unaccompanied violin sonatas/partitas, it's
definitely not my invention.
There appears to be important voice-leading information attached to the
separation of stems, though I admit the composer seems to be
inconsistent with his notation. I have seen similar things in the Bach
cello suites I have practiced on trombone (please don't throw things at
me!) 8-)
This seems to be an excellent case for leaving it to the performer
whether or not there will be any added benefit to comprehension.
On an added note, I am not a violinist, but the effect (in measure 18
beat one) of the inner quarter note might be quite striking. I had to
puzzle over it for a minute, as I could not figure out how it would be
fingered, but then realised that the D is played on the D string way up
the neck. It seems to me too, that measure 6 downbeat must be hard to
play properly. But maybe to a violinist this is very easy?
Christopher
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
