On 24 Oct 2006 at 8:53, dc wrote: > David W. Fenton écrit: > >But haven't you created the problem for yourself by halving the 4/2 > >section and leaving the 3/1 section in its original meter? If you > >were moving from 3/1 to 4/2 it would be the original ratios and you > >wouldn't have the spacing problem. > > > >This is something I see in editions all the time -- halving only the > >meters in 4 because apparently people are afraid of 4/2 or 4/1. The > >latter bothers me (as does 3/1), but it shouldn't -- it's absolutely > >one of the most standard meters in all music before 1700, and in > >liturgical music right into the 19th century. > > > >I would likely have halved both, with 3/2 and 4/4. > > > >But maybe I'm guessing wrong about the original mensuration sign > >(which I assume was a C). > > No, you're completely wrong, I haven't halved anything. This is > exactly the original notation. All the "time signatures" are those of > the source. 4/2 certainly isn't a standard meter in the music of this > period (Italian early 17th century).
You're saying the time signature C at this time was used to mean 4/4? I've never heard of that. And you're right -- I haven't done much work with the music of that era (some Carissimi copied from MS, but not much else). -- 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
