On Fri, Dec 24, 2004 at 09:51:57AM -0800, Don Simons wrote:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/pchpublish/srecep1.pdf
>
> The mystery is in the meaning of the F-naturals. If they mean anything like
> what a modern F-natural means, then there would be no need for any of them,
> since there's no F sharp in the key signature (and even if there were, to
> cancel it would require a flat, not a natural). Besides, they simply sound
> wierd, starting with the subject in bar 1. In fact they would all sound
> better if played as F-sharps. They only seem to be used when descending to
> the note. And look at the shape of the subject in the next two entrances,
> the tenor in Bar 1, and soprano in Bar 3. It's consistent with that
> F-natural having been an F-sharp.
They may be typos. From what you've told us, you would be justified in
assuming so. What about those unaccidented Fs in the bass in measure 12?
I don't know enough about old music to know whether they make sense. But
it is important to determine the correct notes, in case somebody decides
to turn it into a rock opera.
-:-
"To what do I owe the honor of this unexpected visit, Lord
Ruthven . . . alias Lyford Pemberton!"
H. C. Artmann, "Tom Parker, International Detective"
--
Col. G. L. Sicherman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
TeX-music mailing list
[email protected]
http://icking-music-archive.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
