On Jun 27, 2006, at 9:58 PM, Lon Price wrote:
the finale he has sextuplets (no number), then a septuplet (still no number), then 8 16ths in the time of 4, and finally 9 16ths in the time of 4. It's my understanding of the rule for tuplets is that the number of tuplets in one beat should not exceed the subdivided metrical value ( 5, 6 or 7 16ths in the time of 4). So when Paganini gets to 8 and 9 notes in one beat, that should be 32nds. I realize that I have to faithfully reproduce what he wrote (who am I to question the great Paganini?), but isn't this technically incorrect?
First of all, let me say that I agree completely w. David Fenton on the editing protocol involved. Historically, that kind of notation was correct in Paganini's time, but it was not the rule: a very careful (read: fussy) notator might well have written the same passage in a way that strikes us as more "correct."
As to the question of what is correct *now*, things are not quite as simple as you suggest. In particular, the proper number of beams for a septuplet has been a vexed question for a very long time. Many composers follow the rule you cite, that a tuplet should always be beamed according to the next slower "plain" note value (note that the duplet is an exception to this). Other composers, including me, follow a different rule: that the beaming of a tuplet should follow the *closest* plain note value, with the triplet being the dividing point (anything faster than a triplet gets more beams).
The main practical difference between these rules is the septuplet. Under the first rule, seven notes in two beats get a single beam, while under the second rule they get two. As things stand now, either usage is correct, but I feel one should be consistent. If you have some exotic tuplet such as 5:3, you should follow your chosen rule (in this case, one beam under rule one, two beams under rule two). I would, finally, point out that duplet (2:3) notation, which is *not* controversial, is inconsistent with both rules. Way back when I was an undergraduate, I drew up a chart showing the proper rule-2 beaming for every plausible tuplet from 6:5 to 15:8. I still have that piece of paper, and have occasion to consult it every once in a while.
Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
