Till:
> Trevor Daniels schrieb:
...
> > .3 Baroque rhythmic notation (new)
> Karl:
>
> We don't have lilypond examples of this. I have seen this in a Novello
> score for Purcells Dido. So I suggest we drop this for the moment.
> (Though an ossia section might show what the editor want.)
>
>
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:47:58 +0300
Till Rettig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually Graham has pronounced that we should not have a
> task-orientated structure, but just tell about the issues not
> referring to the context they are used to. But maybe it is still ok
> in this case.
Ancient music
Trevor Daniels schrieb:
OK, draft 8 will say:
.6 Editorial markings
.1 Annotational accidentals (was Musica ficta accidentals)
(2.8.4)
.2 Ligature brackets (was Ligatures)
(2.8.2.4)
.3 Baroque rhythmic notation (new)
Karl:
We don't have lilypond examples of this
Trevor Daniels schrieb:
OK, draft 8 will say:
.6 Editorial markings
.1 Annotational accidentals (was Musica ficta accidentals)
(2.8.4)
.2 Ligature brackets (was Ligatures)
(2.8.2.4)
.3 Baroque rhythmic notation (new)
(new - KH)
Ok, so as I understand in 8.
Trevor:
...
> OK, draft 8 will say:
>
>.6 Editorial markings
> .1 Annotational accidentals (was Musica ficta accidentals)
> (2.8.4)
> .2 Ligature brackets (was Ligatures)
> (2.8.2.4)
I don't regard ligature brackets as an editorial thing, since it
is just the modern
Till Rettig wrote
I don't know, what these slurs mean, I came up with the following
editiorial items:
1. annotational accidentals
2. ligature brackets [I think they should be here, and not together
with the ligatures]
3. Barock rhythm indication
1 is the same as 6.1, maybe 2 is the same as 6.
Hi
Karl Hammar wrote
Trevor Daniels wrote
Karl Hammar wrote
Till:
8.5 Transcription of ancient music
Why not call it "Editing" or "Making an edition", but transcription is
also fine.
I think we'll stick with "Transcription" - it seems closer to th
