On 28 Jun 2006 at 4:00, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: > Lon Price wrote: > > I'm working on a piece by Paganini for a client, and his handling of > > tuplets got me wondering about the standards for notating them. > > This piece is a theme and variations, and when he writes sextuplets > > the first two show the numbers, and then he leaves them off, which I > > know is common practice. > I suggest that a highly relevant question here is, "Whose common > practice?" It seems to me that this might be the common practice of > the publisher, the editor, or engraver, and unless one has examined > the autograph, should not be assumed to necessarily be the reflection > of the practice or preference of the composer. . . .
The kind of looseness of rhythmic notation that was described is absolutely standard for the period in both printed editions and MS. > . . . I am of the opinion > that some of the "conventions" of notation are actually typographer's > conventions, dating from the period when music was generated with > handset type. . . . Type? I don't know the exact source, but Paganini would be likely to be engraved (or lithography created from an engraved original). > . . . Leaving off the numeral in all but the first few > tuplets might be (though I do not have definitive information to > confirm whether it is or is not) might be an example of this. In this > instance, the typographer had a insufficient quantity of the italic > numeral 6 to mark every tuplet, and so marked just enough of the > tuplets to indicate the first ones, even if Paganini had religiously > put a six in each and every sextuplet. . . Type was not involved. Punches were, and these would have been used as often as the engraver deemed necessary. I know MSS and prints from the period and what was described in the Paganini was standard practice. > . . . Similarly the use of > sixteenths instead of thirty-seconds may be dictated in this instance > by typographical considerations. It makes a certain sense, actually, given that what the passage is about (if I've understood correctly) is filling in an interval with scales. What matters is not the exact rhythm of the subdivisions, but that one perceives that one has to fit all the notes into a certain time span. > I would pose a more general question: some practices, like > suppressing numerals on all but the first few tuplets, made a certain > amount of sense when other considerations came to play, but these > considerations do not apply in computer typesetting, as there is an > infinite number of italic numeral sixes, or for that matter, an > infinite supply of secondary beams, in the virtual typecase. In such > cases, it seems to me that if it makes the music more understandable, > though not at the expense of readability, that maybe such > considerations should be re-evaluated. I think that your major premise (that leaving out repeated items came from the limitations of typeset music) is WRONG, as typeset music was a small proportion of all the music in the 18th and 19th centuries -- most of it was engraved using punches, and so it was much more like manuscript than it was like typesetting. -- 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
