Klarinet Archive - Posting 000491.txt from 2001/06

From: Bilwright@-----.net (William Wright)
Subj: Re: [kl] Back to the triplet notation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:20:14 -0400

<><> Gene=A0Nibbelin wrote:
Could a composer out there explain why #1 seems to be the consensus
choice?

....I'm certainly not a composer, but #1 is preferable (to me) because
it is visually less complicated. Fewer note heads to read. Also,
when you see a "3", you expect to see three note heads underneath it.

Breaking the beam would be questionable if the composer intended 6/8 to
be played as two beats. But it would be questionable *not* to break
the beam if the composer intended the opposite. A couple of accents
and/or slurs in the beginning, followed by "simile", would clarify the
composer's intent, wouldn't it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org