On 21 Aug 2006 at 8:32, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 21.08.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > > 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. > > > > Really? I don't think any more that it is ambiguous at all, hence I > changed my mind. I think there is no doubt that the figure > - starts on the second beat > - consists of 2 triplets (which could be notated as 16th if one > wants the rhythm to be modernized, or they could be notated as > 32nds in an attempt to keep the original notation > - the latter does have additional problems) and 2 normal 16th.
Well, I meant nonsensical from modern notational standards. I would modernize the notation because I think it's particularly problematic and confusing to have the 32nd-note triplets immediately followed by the two 16ths that take up the same amount of time. While it's perfectly explainable by the conventions of the time, look how much confusion it caused on this list, particularly coming to it without the full context. -- 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
