On 21 Aug 2006 at 9:10, dc wrote: > Johannes Gebauer écrit: > >I beg to disagree: The modern notation of the 32nds triplets is > >indeed 16th triplets. It requires exactly one bracketed 3 over them. > >But notating 32nds by modern standards is simply not correct, and > >would need an explanation. > > Well, we can't agree on everything, and I spend a lot of my time > discussing such issues with other musicologists for scholarly > editions. I still think that the original notation is clearer than the > "correct" modern translation: rather than have two different > interpretations of the same note value (16th), one binary and one > ternary, it uses the 32nd (at least in what we've seen) only as a > ternary subdivision, which, as I pointed out, is also an indication > for the performance of the 32nd following the dotted 16th - indication > which would be lost in the modern "correct" notation.
Well, I would think that what matters is that modern performers are completely accustomed to having a single note value have different lengths in different contexts. It might have confused contemporary performers, but unless you know something I don't, none of those are likely to be involved in performing this piece from Kim's edition. > >They are triplets, they are notated as triplets by their standards, > >in a very correct way. In a modern edition we should modernize > >anything which is clear. > > Providing you don't lose performance practice hints. I think the notation in the original source confuses things for modern performers more than it serves to suggest the performance practice, which anyone playing recorder in this repertory is very likely to understand intuitively. > >You wouldn't notate flats for naturals either, yet that was common > >practice until at least 1720. > > In certain cases I would and do so (continuo figures), because it > makes transposition easier. That's not the same thing at all! > >Modern editions, even if they try to be "Urtext", by definition > >should translate old fashion, obsolete notation with modern notation > >where this is appropriate. > > Yes, of course. It's only a question of defining what is > "appropriate". The further back you go in time, the more the notation > differs from "modern" standards. Any change you make in the original > notation to modernize it generally has advantages and disadvantages. I don't actually see any in the present context, except making it easier for modern performers. > Both have to be weighed before making a decision. The only advantage > in this case is that of being "correct" according to modern standards, > and that is a rather meager one in my opinion. There's also the issue of getting it performed correctly with the least rehearsal time. I think you're going to get there quicker with the 16th-note triplets (which aren't incorrect for the period at all, just an alternate notation). > This is one more case > where the original notation is easier to read for the performer (at > least for me) than the modernized version of it. If it's easier to read, why did it generate so much confusion on this list? Can you actually believe that my alternative A is going to be less ambiguous than the original notation? -- 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
