On 08.05.2006 David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, of course. But even if it's drawn directly from the original
source, both surely can't be correct -- I can't see an interpretation
of the differing rhythmic values that would make any sense.
No, but I'd like to leave this to the performer.
A few
On 09.05.2006 John Howell wrote:
My apologies to both you and David Fenton. What I was actually looking at was
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com/Ressourcen/Stamitz_Part.gif
and at this point I can't remember who provided the link. But wherever it came from, I
do like the look and functionality
On 9 May 2006 at 9:13, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 08.05.2006 David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, of course. But even if it's drawn directly from the original
source, both surely can't be correct -- I can't see an
interpretation of the differing rhythmic values that would make any
sense.
On 09.05.2006 David W. Fenton wrote:
I've never encountered that, and many of the editions I'm working
with are from 1800-20. Of course, they are also pretty reliably
Viennese, which is surely one of the important variables involved
here, i.e., regional practices.
Quite possibly, the edition
On 07.05.2006 Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
Just was wondering if this looks ok. Here's a screenshot:
Kim,
although I am not a harpsichordist, I can imagine your continuo player
to curse at you for the low numbers. I certainly would have difficulties
reading this, and still associate the correct
On 07.05.2006 Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
Just was wondering if this looks ok. Here's a screenshot:
http://www.bytenet.net/kpclow/finale/dynamics-figured.jpg
Just one more thing about your screen shot: Are you sure the note values
of the grace notes are correct (ie as they are in your source)?
At 10:25 AM +0200 5/8/06, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 07.05.2006 Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
Just was wondering if this looks ok. Here's a screenshot:
http://www.bytenet.net/kpclow/finale/dynamics-figured.jpg
I like the looks of this page and the placement of the figures very
much. Given that
On 8 May 2006 at 12:19, John Howell wrote:
At 10:25 AM +0200 5/8/06, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 07.05.2006 Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
Just was wondering if this looks ok. Here's a screenshot:
http://www.bytenet.net/kpclow/finale/dynamics-figured.jpg
I like the looks of this page and the
On 08.05.2006 John Howell wrote:
At 10:25 AM +0200 5/8/06, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 07.05.2006 Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
Just was wondering if this looks ok. Here's a screenshot:
http://www.bytenet.net/kpclow/finale/dynamics-figured.jpg
I like the looks of this page and the placement of the
On 08.05.2006 John Howell wrote:
The alternation of 16th note appoggiaturas with 8th note appoggiaturas? I find
them quite clear, and of course if this is Stamitz I would expect them to be
appoggiaturas and NOT 19th century grace notes. The cadential appoggiaturas,
in particular, would
On 08.05.2006 David W. Fenton wrote:
I'm with Johannes on this one -- it looks inconsistent for no
meaningful reason.
Except that it could be like this in the source. In which case I, too,
would leave it like that and let the performer decide which logic if any
he/she wants to deduct from
On 8 May 2006 at 20:11, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 08.05.2006 David W. Fenton wrote:
I'm with Johannes on this one -- it looks inconsistent for no
meaningful reason.
Except that it could be like this in the source. In which case I, too,
would leave it like that and let the performer
Title: Re: [Finale] Figured bass numbers and dynamic marks
...
At 8:04 PM +0200 5/8/06, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 08.05.2006 John Howell wrote:
At 10:25 AM +0200 5/8/06, Johannes
Gebauer wrote:
On 07.05.2006 Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
Just was wondering if this looks ok.
Here's a screenshot:
http
I usually add dynamic marks last to a document. Well I discovered that the dynamic marks collided with the bass figures.
At first I tried to manually adjust the dynamics, but I didn't like how irregular the placement was.
So then, I opted to lower the figured bass numbers a few notches, to allow
14 matches
Mail list logo
