The only real difference between David's B sample and the one I posted early this morning is that I don't think there are any tuplets at all (and the fact that since there are clearly no rests in the ms at the end of each 8-note set other than the other one in question on beat 3, I changed the last note to an eighth).
The piece is already defined as three to a beat and I think one can easily dispense with confusing the matter by adding tuplet figures. I've only taken the 6 sixteenths of each beat and set them in pairs of three, a situation that is simply a small reflection of the pairs of six eighths in which the piece moves in overall (I feel the piece in 2, as I said early on, given the tempo indication). So the time signature does not require the use of tuplets. It's apparent that I disagree with others who insist those are dotted quarter rests. I think there's enough "line up" information between staves (if you dispense with looking at the second one) to justify those first three notes as belonging to the second half of beat one and three, respectively. That necessitates a shorter rest than a dotted quarter, of course, but I'm a libertarian for what's playable and creates the least confusion. Still, I could be overly liberal here, and admit my editing hat doesn't always wanna sit tight.... Another (very weak!) possibility is that the first three notes following those rests would have been played as pickups to the following beats. In modern notation we'd make those notes smaller, of course. But I really don't think this is what's meant. I guess it's also obvious I'd be one of those who would create a "correctly notated, easily playable" score with footnotes about what the original ms had on it. But you may be creating a scholarly edition- it would help to know whether that's the case....... Of course, I reserve the right to be wrong about everything! But ain't it great to have such a diversity of opinions on all the related issues you brought up? The people on this list always make me think much harder than I sometimes want..... :) best to all- Cecil Rigby [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] A tuplet issue... > On 20 Aug 2006 at 0:38, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: > > > http://www.souvran.com/finale/source.jpg is the source manuscript. > > http://www.souvran.com/finale/finale.jpg is a screen shot of my Finale > > doc. > > > > I'm having a hard time with doing the tuplets on this movement. > > It's not clear to me exactly *where* and how to insert them. > > > > It seems that in the flrst stave ( a solo recorder), > > the dotted quarter rest and the three 32nds are meant to take ONE > > beat. I'm just unclear on how to get Finale to duplicate this > > correctly. > > Your interpretation makes no sense to me. > > I think you're missing a flag on the 32nd note after the first dotted > 16th in the first measure. > > I also see no issues in the measure with the triplets. It seems > perfectly clear what is indicated. See example A here: > > http://www.dfenton.com/images/LaSperanza.gif > > Example B seems to be what you're aiming for, but that would make a > hash of the written rests (though musically I like it a lot better). > > Perhaps if we could see the next line with the continuation of the > second half of the measure indicated by the custodes at the end of > the first system would enlighten us -- it's certainly the case that > this half measure confuses things, though it doesn't support your > interpretation, either. > > -- > 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 _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
