Mark Clifton-Gaultier wrote:If I counted correctly you're at the bottom of page 2 - yes?
So ... page 2, bottom system - all the Ds are natural - no flats.
No. There shouldn't be any flat signs - I think that you mean naturals and these are omitted in error in the original publication.ric2801 wrote:As you can see, all the D notes are # by signature, do you have a different edition with flat signs?
Not really a proper modulation but the passage in question certainly aims us firmly at the A chord.Desperado wrote:D natural - modulation to a major?
Assuming that we're talking about the same passage (I don't have measure numbers in either of my UME copies) the score is wrong - they are meant to be Ds but of course you can play them any way you like.Bill wrote:I must be missing something. I read & played through it twice tonight. I played those d's a as sharps not naturals.
D natural on its own isn't enough to create a modulation, but by "proper" I meant that we don't actually do anything in the key of A.Desperado wrote:What's a "proper modulation" I think modulation is a change of key however brief it maybe and d natural indicates this?
Mark, I'm sorry, i was writing flat instead of natural, my bad. (my English isn't so good).There shouldn't be any flat signs - I think that you mean naturals and these are omitted in error in the original publication.
I don't "know" it in the sense that Regino Sainz de la Maza told me so but the clues are there in the music. Using the numbering as in your "score 2":ric2801 wrote:Are you sure it is a mistake in the score? do you have a score with natural signs or are you supposing that?
That's ok - I guessed as much - just clarifying.ric2801 wrote:Mark, I'm sorry, i was writing flat instead of natural, my bad. (my English isn't so good).
My answer is not based on "feelings and possibilities" but years of study, theoretical and instrumental, and decades more practical experience.ric2801 wrote:is strange to me that people play the music different from the score, based only in feeling and possibilities
On the contrary - it is very common - printed scores are replete with errors - we correct them all the time. One example is the Villa-Lobos étude currently under discussion in another thread. The printed score has been incorrect for many, many years - even when it was reprinted more recently under the (questionable) editorship of Frederick Noad many errors were retained and/or compounded.ric2801 wrote:it is not common in classical music
No - at least, I very much doubt this. UME put together a "new" edition of the collected works of R de la M - all the original mistakes are intact - in fact it looks as if the publication simply uses the original plates. As his work is still protected by copyright there are no other official versions.ric2801 wrote:i think there is some edition with natural signs
If you find one please tell us.ric2801 wrote:or there is a record of Mazza playing it like that
Thank you. Having looked through this score my opinion of it is the same.ric2801 wrote:I've found that edition in a pdf file, it is a Vassilis Gratsounas's revision and fingering.
Yes - one can play it that way - the sharps are not particularly offensive to our modern ears. They are still wrong though.ric2801 wrote:I feel the sameBill wrote:I must be missing something. I read & played through it twice tonight. I played those d's a as sharps not naturals.
Users browsing this forum: Blondie, CommonCrawl [Bot], Denian Arcoleo, quavers and 17 guests