On 20 Aug 2006 at 20:00, dc wrote: > Johannes Gebauer écrit: > >However, I am not convinced the editor should always make > >decisions... > > Not always, of course. But when the decision is based on the specific > source he's editing (and can't be made without consulting the source > in question), and not on a general knowledge of the style (as the > question of ornaments raised not long ago, on which I entirely agree > with you), I'd consider an edition that doesn't suggest a proper > reading just about worthless.
When the notation in the source is nonsensical and can't be interpreted by any known rules of notation, I think it's imperitave for the editor to fix the notation. The original notation is so ambiguous as to be impossible to perform without stopping and figuring out something. I think the clue is in the first measure. Consider the dotted 16th/32nd passage. It's conventional that this is how rhythms resolved into a triplet pattern were notated (Bach did this in the WTC, for instance). Thus, if you derive the base rhythmic value of your triplet from that 32nd note, you'd get three 32nd-note triplets. But in modern notation, we'd notate that as three 16th-note triplets. I misread the original, but I think there's something to be said for my interpretation A as a way to make the smallest changes and still come up with a reading that works. I just can't see the upbeat interpretation, even though it's musically more interesting, because of the completely clear dotted quarter rests. The arpeggios clearly take up the 2nd and 4th beats of the measure, and I can't see any way to get around that. Reading the triplets as 16ths instead of 32nds (based on the dotted rhythm in the previous measure) resolves the problem. -- 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
