On 20 Aug 2006 at 13:20, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 20.08.2006 dc wrote: > > Unless the 32nds begin on the beat, of course, which would seem the > > most likely solution, though you seem to rule it out. Why? > > Well, they don't line up at all.
Vertical alignment means *nothing* in this time period. Remember how whole notes are placed in the middle of the measure, for example. A score in this period and up through Haydn and Mozart is not a *score* in the sense that we think of it, but a guide for a copyist who is creating parts for performance. This, linear clarity is more important that vertical alignment, which is irrelevant to the creation of parts for performance. > However, I have to agree with Dennis > that this is a distinct possibility, often in these manuscripts things > don't quite line up. They hardly *ever* line up! And that means *nothing* either way. > Personally I still think there is an element of ambiguity here, which > may well have been desired by the composer, but it _looks_ as though > the first three 32nds are indeed an "upbeat" to the next beat. Look at the partial measure at the end of the system and things get even more complicated since the bottom parts have two beats of the 12/8 measure and the recorder (I accidentally called it an oboe in another post) has what the upbeat interpretation would call a single beat. I'd definitely like to see the next system. (of course, there's some inconsistency here in my claiming above that vertical alignment doesn't matter, but barlines and the breaking of partial measures across systems seems to me to always be vertically aligned; it's only within a measure that vertical alignment was not considered important) -- 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
