On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:10 PM, David W. Fenton <[email protected]>wrote:
> Kim, do you think that there should be no continuo realization here? I'm not doing one at all- my editor/publisher will do one if a client asks for one, but until then, no. > > And what about the balance? I suppose one recorder in that range is > going to be able to be heard over the first and second violins > playing in unison (we're not talking about 32 players here, of > course). I agree, the recorder will be heard above those strings, which would be playing "p" or "pp" I think. > > I'm having a hard time understanding the utility of the practice, to > be honest. Seems to me there would have been much easier ways to > indicate the same thing. Yah, why not just notate the music the way it was meant to be played. I can tell you from my work with Graupner's scores and parts, whenever he has the flutes doing a quasi solo section and violin 1 and 2 are doing that quiet murmuring background effect, he notates them in treble clef. Graupner was not the copyist for the Telemann Ouverture in A minor either, I believe it was a guy named "Hoffman"? And the corrected clefs indicate to me that it's not just us today who could be confused by it. I wondered if the copyist was just so used to doing a system with 4 part strings, he may have done the treble clefs purely out of habit, but I don't know about that, it certainly looks like he was confused too! Thanks everyone for your help!! Much appreciated! Kim _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
