On 17 Mar 2010 at 12:37, Michael Greensill wrote: > <<It's surprising how much that > short passage gets completely wrong (the sole musical example has > zilch to do with inegal), and how much about the topic it omits > entirely.>> > > A good example of why the internet is about information and not > knowledge. Thanks for putting us straight.....if of course you're > right :)
Well, in the case of the Handel, that's a notation issue, not an execution issue. They hadn't yet developed our modern notational convention for triplets -- they had a different convention, i.e., notating them as dotted eighth/sixteenth. In the context of a passage with triplets, performers would understand what to do. And there's no particularly subtlety involved (they are correct in the way they transcribe it). Pairing that with a discussion of inegal indicates exactly how wrong the explanation of inegal is, in that the only situation in which one would find anything in common between the two topics is if you erroneously equate inegal with triplets (i.e., changing the rhythmic value in a 2:1 ratio), and all the treatises on inegal will tell you that this is backwards, that inegal is about weight and not principally about duration. If you start from a correct understanding of inegal, there is no reason to throw in the Handel example here. I tried to locate a good example or proper inegal, but the MySpace videos I was looking at for seem reason kill my WiFi router, so I gave up! Maybe somebody else can offer up something to listen to... -- 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
