On 21 Aug 2006 at 7:32, dc wrote: > David W. Fenton écrit: > >Seems to me that my solution A is pretty solid. I can't see any other > >reading that's consistent with everything that follows and that makes > >the fewest alterations to the original notation. And my > >interpretation also provides an explanation of *why* the original > >notation is the way it is. > > Well, I stand by my own interpretation, largely confirmed by the > following systems. I see no reason to replace the 32nds by 16ths nor > to change anything else in the original notation. It's clearer to have > both values since there are also "regular" 16ths. (Changing the 32nds > to 16ths would require adding 3's over the tuplets.) . . .
Huh? Why? The grouping in 3s makes it completely clear that it's triplets. Likewise, the triplet is followed by a duplet, and if they are different lengths, it makes no sense (i.e., in the 2nd full measure of the recorder, the measure with the dotted quarter rests). Having 2 pairs of 32nd-note triplets followed by a pair of 16th notes in the same time as one of the 32nd-note triplets is going to be confusing, seems to me, at least for anyone who's not clued into the reason why the notation uses 32nds. > The presence of > the 32nds is also an indication towards performing the dotted 16th > followed by a 32nd in the same ternary subdivision, rather than as > written. All this is very common notation pratice in the music of the > late baroque period, from which I assume this example stems, and > requires no explanation. The notation of the long short as dotted note followed by a note half the length of the undotted note does not change how they notated the triplets. In the Bach example, dotted 8th 16th in one hand plays with 8th note triplets in the other. I agree that the short note explains the use of 32nds in the present example, but it's contrary to modern notational standards. While I think someone seeing a whole measure packed with 32nd-note triplets will know what to do with them (i.e., play them as though they are 16th-note triplets), in the other measures, it only serves to confuse things. I would modernize the notation, which remains intepretable in the manner you recommend (i.e., resolving the dotted pattern into a triplet). -- 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
