G. Crona wrote: > Hi Rainer, > > Your ex. 1 makes much more musical sense. > For ex. 2, I do prefer the original (see echo in bar 23).
I am afraid bar 23 is an argument FOR my suggested emendation, not against it :) Rainer > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "adS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Lute net" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:58 PM > Subject: [LUTE] Milan, Fanatrsia 8 > > >> Dear lute netters, >> >> I am currently studying Milan's Fantasia 8 and I think I should change two >> bars, >> however, I would like to know other people's opinions: >> >> I am tempted to change bar 14 >> >> from >> _______ >> _0_____ >> _0_____ >> ____2__ >> _2_____ >> _______ >> >> to >> >> _______ >> _0_____ >> _______ >> _0__2__ >> _2_____ >> _______ >> >> Compare bar 17. >> >> and - less convincing though(?) - bar 21 >> >> from >> >> ________ >> _3______ >> _0____1_ >> _0__2___ >> ________ >> ________ >> >> >> to >> >> ________ >> _3______ >> _0__1___ >> _0____2_ >> ________ >> ________ >> >> >> Apparently somebody else wanted to change this bar as indicated by an >> unknown >> modern hand in the copy kept in Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, R. 9281 :) >> >> Rainer adS >> >> >> >> To get on or off this list see list information at >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> > > >
