On 19 Nov 2007 at 9:30, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: > On Mon, November 19, 2007 8:47 am, dc wrote: > > What cautionary accidentals would seem appropriate in the alto part, m.5, > > of this piece, bearing in mind that it is for three (solo) voices (1610, > > if > > that makes any difference): > > > > http://www.philomela.net/ex/deus.jpg > > > > 1) fa natural > > 2) e natural > > 3) both > > 4) none > > Having for many years sung early music, I say both, parenthetical. It may > not be pretty on the page, but for 'listening' singers and singers who are > not focused on a narrow area of repertoire, the instant removal of doubt > is important. Did the editor forget? Do we stop and re-analyze to check? > Maybe... > > I overindulge in parenthetical and even non-parenthetical courtesies in my > own work, and I think that has always influenced my level of doubt when > encountering the type of ambiguity you present. Clarity is good.
But there's nothing unclear to a singer of the style -- sing what's on the page and it comes out fine, seems to me. Adding in cautionaries will then prompt the singer to second guess, seems to me, because clarifying what is already clear can trip one up. -- 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
