Ryan Beard wrote:
Just a quick opinion poll:
Should an "A tempo" marking come after a fermata?
No rit. or accel. precedes the fermata.
I don't believe it's necessary, but a client thinks it is. I'll probably give
in to his demands since he's writing the check, but I think it's superfluous
nonetheless.
In my opinion an A tempo "cancels" a rit or accel. A rhythmic "natural sign" to cancel a "flattening" or
"sharpening" of the tempo, if you will. A fermata is self-contained and it's understood that the tempo resumes. Putting an "A
tempo" after a fermata makes me think that a "rit" marking is missing from the music (in fact, a "rit" is the first thing I
looked for after I saw his A Tempo correction in the music...)
Enough opining on my part.
Ryan
I agree that it is unnecessary -- with no instructions to
change the tempo there is no need for an instruction to
return to the original tempo.
On the other hand, would it be possible to misinterpret the
tempo of the music following the fermata? Does the
character of the music change such that the composer feels
that the "a tempo" marking is necessary?
It certainly won't hurt, whether it's necessary or not.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
