Welcome to the User page of Richard Pascoe.
25th May 2018:
The Pur ti miro score is hopefully finished.
In Bar 22 and Bar 37 the two upper voices of the continuo that are part of the Suspended dominant resolve to a keyboard unison. I did experiment with a correct unison but it actually disrupted the sight-reading flow. I understood it as the F sharp rising and the B descending to the A unison. I'm not an expert but Bar 22 and Bar 37 seem correct from the point of sight-reading flow and shouldn't cause any problems.
Well I thought it would be worth a try to create a readable score and I noted that the piece now consists of sixty-four bars. I don't know about anyone else but I rarely write a piece with an odd number total for the bars. I wonder if that double bar at the beginning was really the composer's intention. I split it into two bars of 3/1 time and we end up at sixty-four. Just an observation. Probably wrong. lol
Cheers for the help.
Richard
2nd June 2018:
It will not escape notice that the Pur ti miro score could take the key signature of G major. The Russian score gave no indication of key though other parts of the score have a key signature. I think for reading purposes the absence of the key signature poses no problems. If you look at Bar 15, Bars 23 and 24, Bar 39, and Bar 61 you can see clearly the F sharps and F naturals across the staves even if the cancellation is mid-bar and on a different stave (see B61). This may be a positive thing when reading the score.
Richard
11th August 2018:
I have just realised that the fingering I used for the Louis Straebbog piano studies was for string instruments. I am a guitarist. I now know that the convention for piano fingering is above the treble stave and below the bass stave with inner placement being used in certain circumstances. However the studies are easy to read on a widescreen computer monitor even with the fingering next to the notehead. So I see no problem with leaving these studies up for the moment since the error is one of formatting rather than erroneous information.
I will attempt to create the original formatting but I don't know if it will be worth replacing the two studies that are already up. They are beginners studies and after a few plays most people will have memorized the music and any other information conveyed by the score.
regards
Richard
2nd September 2018:
I have uploaded a new version of Carcassi Study No.3 Opus 60. The minim stems were one space short from their note heads for these bars:
2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21
Sorry about that but it took going to a high zoom to spot the error. Hopefully that is the score finished.
regards
Richard
3rd September 2018:
I checked Study 1 and 2 of the Carcassi files I have uploaded and there are 5 offset/stem errors in Study 1 and 2 offset/stem errors in Study 2. I will fix those scores before I start any further studies. These are formatting errors rather than wrong notation. I will also check or reset the beams to the default.
The scores just need these fixes applied. So it will not take long. Thanks for your patience.
regards
Richard
4th September 2018:
Study One is now corrected. Study Three and Study One are now standardized with regards to the double stemmed minims attached to a beam of crotchets.
Study Two needs to be standardized to One and Three.
There are twenty-five studies in total.
regards
Richard
5th September 2018:
Sorry but I didn't spot that the second beam of bar twenty one of Study One was wrong. I checked the original and I had got it wrong. The new file I have just uploaded file for Study One should be the last. I cannot see anymore errors. I started Study One on the 22nd of July but it took getting to Study Three to form an idea of how the whole volume should be formatted. Hopefully that is Study One and Three now finalised.
regards
Richard
7th September 2018:
I had a quick check of Study No.2 Opus 60 by Carcassi to make sure the beams were at their default positions and that there were no stem/note head offset issues. Everything seems in order. So I believe that Studies one, two and three are now final. If you find any errors feel free to leave a message on my Talk Page.
regards
Richard
13th September 2018:
To avoid confusion about what is marked in the original Study Three (Opus 60) by Carcassi. The marks I am referring to are the accent marks. They are obviously accent marks because you cannot have a diminuendo hairpin and a crescendo instruction in the same place. So take bar eleven where the two marks appear. What interpretation is there other than the top mark is an accent mark and not a hairpin.
regards
Richards
17th September 2018:
I finished Study Six by Louis Streabbog today but have yet to check it. Because I had standardised studies four, five and six it became necessary to return to the first three studies and apply the new staff spacing. I also caught a wrong fingering mistake in bar fifteen of Study One. I don't play keyboards and the print was feint in the original. However I do understand passing the thumb under and passing the third finger over the thumb. So I corrected the fingering. I will check the piano fingering more carefully in the future.
Thanks for your patience. I have never done this score preparation before so it is a learning curve.
regards
Richard
26th September 2018:
There was an error in the original print score of Study No.4 (Opus 60) by Carcassi. The fingering for bar fifteen should be so the first finger takes the notes on the high E string and the second finger the notes on the B string. The erroneous fingering was playable but not desirable. The Urtext edition has the correct fingering but I have found that also has errors. So in the Urtext edition at bar twenty-two of Study No.4 the fingering is wrong. I have replaced the file with the corrected version today. Hopefully the score is finished but I will keep checking all the earlier uploads so as not to be beguiled by the wish to have finished.
regards
Richard
9th October 2018:
I have corrected the rests in Study One Opus 60 by Carcassi. I have also used the default placement for the Composer, Title, Sub-Title and Tempo text. This is now the same as the Streabbog piano studies. I will do the rests and text for the other four Carcassi studies next. Study One probably has the worst errors since that was only the third score I had tried to typeset but I will thoroughly check the others. I believe that Study One is finished and correct but please feel free to check yourself.
regards
Richard
28th March 2019:
I have added the missing Adagio mark to bar forty-eight of the Pur ti miro score. I originally left it out because it was slowing down the playback in Sibelius. Looking at the download figures I thought I had better add the mark. Sorry about the delay. A Glazunov score of the Chopin Waltz No 2 Op 64 will be done sometime in the future. In the score up at IMSLP there are a few errors. The original score has the wrong clefs for the harp just for a few bars. That is it for now though if anyone wants a Sibelius compressed XML of Pur ti miro just message me and I will upload it. Thanks for your patience.
regards
Richard
2nd April 2019:
AVID SIBELIUS 2018 XML FILE DOWNLOAD LINK:
Pur ti miro (Score) - Monteverdi
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ssW_QaXMhq5wSV7sGu7Yi_JIF4Aibxwr
Just in case anyone wants to extract parts here is the compressed mxl format from Sibelius.
regards
Richard
3rd April 2019:
AVID SIBELIUS 2018 PROJECT FILE DOWNLOAD LINK:
Pur ti miro (Score) - Monteverdi
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YiP4SFp9rx8xd1sz6L8IKnqabYl_UnGL
For Sibelius users.
regards
Richard
16th April 2019:
REMOVED POST. Study 11 Op 63 by Louis Gobbaerts is not correct. I think I know what the problem is. Sibelius is following the rule for beaming notes that start and end on the same pitch class. Might be something to do with beaming over rests. Probably take a day or two to figure out the way to enter the correct angles for the beams.
regards
Richard
17th April 2019:
Uploaded the new correct version of Study 11 Op 63 by Louis Gobbaerts. I also found the solution to the fingering alignment in the first two bars of Study 1. It is to do with vertical alignment. A fingering column for a left hand piano chord has to have equal vertical distance between each numeral in the column. I will correct Study 1 in the next few days.
regards
Richard
18th April 2019:
Uploaded the new score of Study 1 Op 63 by Louis Gobbaerts. I had a look at the other scores and the tempo text needs to be left aligned for Studies 2. 3, 4 and 6. The rest of the studies have the tempo text aligned left. I will recheck all the scores. I will put together a correct volume eventually. I think I am better at guitar scores because that is the instrument I play. It is good practice doing scores for other instruments because you learn more about typesetting. Imagine people used to do this without computers and by hand engraving plates.
regards
Richard
24th April 2019:
I have replaced Study Two and Three of Op 63 by Louis Gobbaerts. Study Two was just a tempo mark that needed placing left. However Study Three had fingering alignment problems. I have uploaded a new PDF of Study Three which has the 1 and 4 fingering for bar two and twenty in the correct position. However the fingering 1 and 2 for bar one/two and bar nineteen/twenty is a compromise. If I allowed the Sibelius default for numeral 1 then numeral 2 ended up in the last space of the treble stave. So I chose to allow the numeral 2 to be nearer to the default position and the offset to be on the 1. Basically having the 1 numeral in the default position (Sibelius attaches it to the note) and the 2 taking the offset meant that the 2 was nowhere near its note. I think after this volume of beginner's studies is finished I will probably stick with Guitar scores and Orchestral scores. To think I was going to try typesetting Nocturne No.2 Opus 9 by Chopin - it was that piece of music that switched me onto Classical music many decades ago - I had better leave that typesetting job to a pianist.
regards
Richard
8th June 2019:
Updated link to Sibelius project for the Pur ti miro score by Monteverdi (see 3rd April 2019 entry). I have replaced the tempo text with metronome marks in bars 48 and 62. The project will now play correctly when loaded into Avid Sibelius 2018. The problem was the tempo text seemed to be set to a crotchet and also the last four bars go from a 3/1 time signature to a 4/4 time signature. Note that the metronome mark in bar 48 is set to a minim count and the metronome mark in bar 62 is set to a crotchet count.
I am not too sure if I should update the PDF score. It would make it easier for someone working from the score to use the metronome marks rather than to remember that the word Adagio applies to the minim count and Lento applies to the crotchet count. I will have a think about it and decide in the next day or two. Opinions on the matter are welcome.
regards
Richard
2nd July 2019:
Uploaded replacement for Study Three Opus 60 by Carcassi. While doing studies Nine and Ten I worked out the default spacing for the fingering for thirds so I am going through the earlier studies and formatting the fingering to the correct spaces and making sure any fingering columns are aligned. Studies One and Two are fine but Study Three had one formatting problem which was the fingering for the A sharp of bar six needed to be moved right. It was in the end of the preceding bar due to the accidental. That has now been fixed. I have checked the other Carcassi studies and there are only two which need the fingering readjusted. I also will do the Fernando Study. I have nearly finished Study Ten Opus 60 by Carcassi but I am going to fix the existing issues in the earlier scores before uploading that. We are talking minor formatting and the scores are correct but since the aim is to complete all twenty-five studies it seems prudent to get the formatting right on the early studies first.
regards
Richard
3rd July 2019:
Uploaded replacement for Study Three Opus 60 by Carcassi. The previous formatting issue which needed to be fixed caused a formatting issue in the preceding bar which was not there originally. The position mark for bar five needed extending after the fix to bar six. This should be the final edit. I cannot see any other issues. Thanks for your patience.
regards
Richard
6th July 2019:
Uploaded replacement for Study Six (Opus 60) by Carcassi. I managed to format the fingering so that readability is improved. However for bar eleven and bar twenty-four it was not possible to arrange the fingering in columns without disassociation or without placing the fingerings to the right of their respective notes. All my Carcassi studies are with left alignment for the fingerings and bar eleven and twenty-four follow that format.
regards
Richard
9th July 2019:
The image below is of bars nine to twelve (one stave) from Study No.3 (Opus 31) by Sor. This is to explain why I have chosen not to center align the fingering for thirds.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wKvfIlTCHqDhJ1gOfCL0Q1s-j5Hrd_AW
As you can see the readability of the piece is made more difficult by the lack of separation between the fingerings. So I have offset the fingering by a quarter space for thirds on the basis that a half space is the Sibelius default magnetic layout separation value for fingering columns. It is rare in guitar music to see four fingerings given for a chord though it is common to see triads consisting of thirds with fingering. With a triad I can allow the middle note fingering to be centered and the outer fingerings can take the quarter space offset.
regards
Richard
15th July 2019:
Uploaded the new and final version of Study No.1 Opus 63 by Jean Louis Gobbaerts. The changes are so slight but I feel as though the score looks better. The alginment of the fingering was just one or two clicks. The dynamic marks are better with their new positions. Here are the changes:
fingering for bars one, two and seventeen aligned, dynamic marks repositioned for bars seven, nine and twenty-three
This is not to say that every fingering in bar one was aligned incorrectly but the ledger line of the first note in the treble stave had pushed the fingering away from its default position. So just small changes like that really.
regards
Richard
18th July 2019:
Just uploaded Study No.6 (Opus 63) by Gobbaerts. I mentioned in the post above that Study No.1 by Gobbaerts was the final version but I forgot to optimize the score. So I have optimized and Sibelius automatically widened the space between the braced staves. Also Study No.5 needs further correcting so the X axis of the fingering is standard. In my haste to ensure the Y axis was correct I have a few fingerings with a wrong X axis.
So at the moment I believe Study No.6 and Study No.3 from Opus 63 by Gobbaerts to be the final versions. So total so far - seven Carcassi studies finished and two Gobbaerts studies finished. One Carcassi study to be reviewed and ten Gobbaerts studies to be reviewed. When all are correct I will have a look at the Pur ti miro score. In all honesty it is not a commitment I envisaged taking years. Actually I predictied a year to finish the Carcassi studies.
regards
Richard
28th July 2019:
Just uploaded a new replecement score for Study No,2 Op.63 by Gobbaerts with just one change in bar twenty-one where the highest fingering was displaced. So I corrected the placement. However the score has not updated and the old pdf is still available. Once that has been replaced that will only leave Study No.4 and Study No.1 to finish. The reason I mentioned this is because the change is so small in Study No.2 that I am concerned that an administrator here may not see it or consider it important. It is important because the standards I set with these studies will be the ones I will use for other studies. So if any administrator reads this please update the score to the new pdf.
thanks
Richard
6th August 2019:
Thanks admin for updating Study No.2 Op.63 by Gobbaerts. Study 4 is finished and updated. Took a while to finish Op.63 but it was good typesetting practice. Here is an explanation of some formatting decisions:
Indented first bar - my view on this is why bother if the scores are individual PDF files. The indent is related to print material and the need to locate individual scores or sections in a volume. There is no point in binding all the Opus 63 scores into a single PDF because we are not dealing with printed material.
White space below the last stave - it is common practice in printed scores to ensure that there is no white space below the bottom of the last stave. So a two page piano study in a printed volume occupies all the space by widening the distance betweens systems. I cannot see any reason to follow that with a PDF that is more likely to be played off the computer screen.
These formatting decisons only apply to these short studies which are easy to read off a computer screen. For a PDF volume of studies the indent and white space might be the way to go. Just thought I would mention those two formatting changes for anyone who is interested.
regards
Richard
8th February 2020:
A note about Study 12 Opus 60 by Carcassi. I have moved the hairpins below the stave for three bars whereas in the Urtext and Boije they are above. The reason is because the notes are double-stemmed. A hairpin cannot be used in this study for just the Soprano voice because melody notes are double-stemmed to bass notes. If this was the intention of the composer or editor then they would have to somehow indicate which bass notes are not subject to the hairpin. If you look at the three bars in the Urtext and Boije where the hairpin is above the bar there has been no attempt to indicate that the hairpins only apply to the highest note and sometimes they start and end on a bass note.
I saw no reason to have the hairpins for those three bars above the stave. Take for example bar thirteen which has a hairpin for the first beat. The E and G of the first beat of bar thirteen are repeated in beat two which has no hairpin. So if the intention was to decrease the volume for just the single note in the Soprano - the D on the second semiquaver of the first beat - it would be pointless to draw a hairpin over all four semiquavers of beat one of bar thirteen. So the hairpin must apply to all the notes and therefore can go underneath.
Just wanted to explain this issue because I have changed the position of these hairpins and maybe someone will wonder why that decision was made.
regards
Richard
31st March 2020:
I was reading a forum conversation at Piano Street about the tempo markings given in modern editions of the sonatas of Domenico Scarlatti. One user said that editors who added tempo marks should give the reason or source for their decision. I realised that I added a metronome mark to my score of "Pur ti miro" by Monteverdi while the original score used the tempo word "andante". So for future reference my metronome mark was based on the Jaroussky and De Niese live performance video on the YouTube channel "Dynamic opera and classical music". I don't know if this information will prove useful but I thought I would add it so others can check the source for my metronome mark.
regards
Richard
6th January 2022:
I have been offline for one year and seven months. I spotted a mistake in the Monteverdi score Pur ti miro. The two full-stops in bar fourteen should be commas. I have corrected the score and will replace the existing score. The punctuation mistake does not impair the reading of the score but obviously should be corrected. I frequently take a year or so offline but I will get back to finishing the Carcassi Opus 60 studies and will attempt to replace the Pur ti miro score right now. I imagine I may be rusty and make a hash of replacing the score but I am sure I will remember how to do it. Thanks for your patience.
Richard
17th January 2022:
Just uploaded Carcassi Study No.13 Opus 60 and I thought I would point out that the first dynamic mark of pf means poco forte not piano forte. You can find the information on this dynamic mark on page 79 of the AB Guide To Music Theory Part 1. The reason I mentioned this is because beginners may get it confused with fp and think it is the reverse of forte piano.
Richard
6th February 2022:
Just uploaded a new version of Carcassi Study No.15 after aligning the dynamics. I now realise that my dynamics on the earlier studies may need some adjustment. The task is to align dynamics sharing a stave where possible or desirable. I will review the earlier Carcassi scores to see if I can improve the alignment of the dynamics.
Richard
11th April 2022:
Just a note on my views on the pedagogical aim of deliberate mistakes in student material. Even before I started the Carcassi scores I was aware of deliberate mistakes inserted by editors. It is very common in maths books. The editor knows that a maths student needs to be encouraged to recheck his answers and therefore the editor enters a wrong answer to an exercise. As I was working through the Carcassi studies and finding that two separate editions carried sometimes the same error - I could only conclude that some of these were deliberate. A way of getting the student to name the correct position or fingering. I am sure there were also genuine errors. I have attempted to clear Opus 60 of all mistakes - deliberate or otherwise. The deliberate mistake still has its place especially in beginners maths books but it is not necessary for the Carcassi Opus 60 studies.
For example in bar four of Study 17 in the Urtext is a wrong note. Every edition at IMSLP has the correct low A note not the low F as in the Urtext. A mixture of genuine mistakes and deliberate mistakes is a source for problems. I accept the pedagogical aim of deliberate mistakes but can they be justified when there are so many genuine mistakes?
Richard
22nd June 2022:
Just some information about Study 18 Opus 60 by Carcassi. I have added an augmentation dot to the middle C of bar sixteen. This is not in the Urtext or Boije which are the earliest scanned scores available at IMSLP. The reasons for adding the dot to bar sixteen was firstly to avoid ending that section on a dissonant (unsupported) melodic fourth interval (G# - C#) and secondly because all other similar bars have their augmentation dot. Because of these two points I consider this omitted dot to be an error.
The other issue is that many players use a chromatic run in the soprano voice for bar fourteen which is not in the Urtext or Boije. I have to follow these two editions because Carcassi died in 1853 and the Boije edition was printed in 1852 and is listed as a reprint of an earlier edition. The Urtext was printed in 1921.
Richard
6th July 2022:
Just some more information on the score "Pur ti miro" by Monteverdi that I corrected. I found this scholarly article:
This made me have some doubts about whether I was right to make the barlines conform to a strict meter. However I still cannot understand if vocal music received barlines according to poetic accent then why is bar six of the original score reduced to half the time value (3 minims not 6) of the preceding bar when there is no accent because the extra barline falls right in the middle of a vocal flourish that appears a further four times later on in the score without the extra barline.
So reading the article above it does mention later copyists sometimes added barlines and the autograph here at IMSLP is probably from the revival performance some twenty years after Monteverdi's death. Maybe the original Monteverdi score, which is lost, had a barline at bar six but why would he put it there but not in the other four places where the same lyric is repeated verbatim with exactly the same musical material.
Just to make it easier for others to locate this erroneous barline in the original score Leningrad: Muzyka, 1974. Plate 1541 (not the D'Indy score) it is when Nero first sings the words "pur t'annodo". You can see the twelve crotchets are split into two groups by the barline and if you quickly scan the rest of the duet you will see the same material but without the extra barline. So I removed this barline and this made the meter regular.
One of the first decisions I made was to split the first bar into two bars. If you go to the top of this page you can read that I stated this but I didn't give a reason for it. I took the first bar to be the full ground bass given as one bar for the sake of completeness. A way of saying to the performer, or as a reminder for the conductor, here is the complete ground bass without meter but from the following bar it will have its meter. However this is not needed in a modern score and adding the barline just makes it into a standard introduction which brings regular bar numbering to the score. A first bar without meter may have been used here to show the complete ground bass but it is not now necessary or desirable for our purposes.
Richard
15th July 2022:
In my post dated 28th March 2019 I mentioned I was doing a new edition of the Waltz from Chopiniana by Glazunov. I also mentioned the errors so I am going to list the errors here for other editors because I don't think I will be able to finish the new edition. So specifically I am detailing the errors in this score at IMSLP:
Revised Edition
Publisher Info. Leipzig: M.P. Belaieff, No.460, n.d. Plate 863/871a.
Valse (Op.64 No.2)
The first error is in the Harp stave. At bar 8 there is a change of the treble clef to a bass clef and at bar 13 the bass clef should have been changed back to a treble clef but this was not done until bar 16. So to correct the error change the top stave to a treble clef for bar 13 in the harp part. To be clear it is only bars 13, 14 and 15 of the harp part that have the wrong clef.
I will list the other errors. I don't know if anyone will use this information but having a record of where the errors are in the score may help someone else later on. That is if anyone decides to do a modern edition with software.
Another error is in bar 19 of the treble stave of the harp. The sharp should be attached to the C not the A.
At bar 165 the lower stave of the harp which is given as a treble clef in the printed score should be a bass clef. The printed score has a bass clef from bar 167 onwards so it is just bars 165 and 166 of the bottom stave that need to be changed from a treble clef to a bass clef.
The minims of bars 183, 184 and 185 of the Triangle part are missing their augmentation dots.
Richard
20th May 2022:
A user called Geniusboy98 has altered the landing page for the Monteverdi opera "L'Incoronazione di Poppea". Now I want to clear about this. Anyone in the world typing in this opera name or "Pur ti miro" into the Google search box and adding imslp will find that the first link at the top of Google search results will be to this main page with the single full score provided by Geniusboy98. Now this user Geniusboy98 is entitled to do that because he has provided the full score. However I am going to check that score for mistakes because what is the point of stealing the Google top spot and first landing page if the score has errors. Maybe he has typeset the parts? I don't know yet because the scores are so new I don't have access yet.
So Geniusboy98 better have checked this score thoroughly because if there is one mistake I would like the original tab landing page restored. After all that landing page has the original manuscript and my error free "Pur ti miro" excerpt. What is the point of me spending four years on Carcassi Opus 60 and still having one years worth of work to do if someone can just provide a scanned score with errors that relegates my corrected and error free Opus 60 score to a secondary tab.
I am giving Geniusboy98 the benefit of the doubt since he has chosen his username carefully. But wisdom and intelligence are two different things. So a list of mistakes I will provide. Let us hope that is not the case but I am a good judge of human nature and choice of user name. That is why I use my real name.
At the very least put the manuscript score on the same page since it is the full score and the manuscript. I think we can all accept the manuscript has precedence.
Richard
21st May 2022:
Referring to the previous post. What is worse is that if anyone types "Pur ti miro" into Google they don't get to see that duet. I have done the best "Pur ti miro" score available. Google are not going to change their listings to fix this crime. The mods here probably cannot do anything. So that leaves just Geniusboy98 but why would he have "Pur ti miro" appear as the landing page after a Google search using the words "Pur ti miro".
I mean what a mess he has caused for the world. The whole world.
Update. The score by Geniusboy98 is live and I checked the harpsichord part. This is important what he has done. Geniusboy98 has provided the performance score by D'Indy. It still doesn't change the fact that he has halved my downloads. Well I suppose my grumpy attitude is more an acknowledgement of the damage he has done to my downloads. I don't the want the prolated D'Indy score to have priority so maybe I will reverse engineer the prolation of the D'Indy score and rewrite the instrumental parts for Pur ti miro against the manuscript. I was checking through the manuscript of the the 3rd act because of the deprecation of the term "l'idol" to modern italian "l'idolo" on sites that have the lyrics for Pur ti miro. I can confirm the manuscript only uses "l'idol" in Pur ti miro.
Richard
21st May 2022:
I am done. I seem to have a four year life cycle on sites I join. lol
Thanks for the help. I am proud of "Pur ti miro" and the Carcassi studies. So close to finishing Study 19 of Opus 60 Carcassi. Never mind. Best of luck to everyone here. Good site with a good purpose. As Boris Johnson said last week "no one is indispensable" which sounds like a cue for a holiday. lol
Richard
16th November 2022:
After sulking for six months about my diminished downloads on "Pur ti miro" I suppose I should finish the Carcassi studies of Opus 60. I have a very simple approach to my work which is "Go away, leave me alone, I'm not interested in anything you do." However I think I owe it to everyone and to myself to finish the Carcassi studies. Study 19 was nearly finished so I suppose I will start with that. Holiday over but I am going to sulk to the end. Go away. Leave me alone. You can mess with my work after I have died. lol
Richard
6th January 2023:
I just want to add some information about Study 19 and Study 20 of Opus 60 by Carcassi. Whenever I finish a score which has been uploaded I try to see if I can improve it. With Study 19 the obvious problem is the minim in the bass that is offset. I tried to pull the minims in as close as I could but it did not lessen the reading difficulties and so I will leave Study 19 as it is. I was also having difficulties in entering the legato slides and shift slides in Study 20. I finally managed to get the slides in bar eight, eighteen, twenty, and thirty-two to a point where they are readable and well-presented. However the slide between the grace note and the following normal note in bar twenty-four was proving difficult. One of the original printed scores at IMSLP omits it completely but the Urtext has the slide above the notes and inbetween the fingering. I have managed to get a similar slide to the Urtext for bar twenty-four but have left out the fingering. It took two weeks of experimenting before I found a way of making it presentable. The idea is for the score not to present any element that the player has to stop at to work out. So hopefully I should now be able to finish Study 20 but I still need to fine tune the slide lines because I want the angles and lengths to be if not similar then at least not so far different from each other in presentation.
Richard
15th March 2023:
I just want to give a progress report for Study 21 of Opus 60 by Carcassi. I have managed to get the first sixteen bars typeset to a standard that I am happy with but I am really struggling with the bars that follow. The main problem is the ligado slurs for the double grace notes. Over the years I have done these studies sequentially but I think since there are only five studies left that it may be prudent to do Study 22 before I finish Study 21. I may also do Study 23 and and Study 25. These three studies (22, 23 and 25) present no typesetting problems. I just thought I would mention this new course of action. Study 21 from a typesetting viewpoint is proving to be difficult.
Richard
6th August 2024:
I just want to add a note about the "Pur ti miro" score. I have chosen to add barlines which do not appear in the manuscript or the Russian score I worked from. It makes no difference. For example the opening bar of the manuscript adds up to two dotted breves and is missing the barline yet the following two bars consists of exactly the same material and has the barline which means each bar has the correct one dotted breve. Think about this. It doesn't matter if the manuscript starts with a single bar with two dotted breves because the meter is 3/1. I know that non-musicians may be horrified at my changes seeing that as a corruption of the original manuscript but the original manuscript is not in Monteverdi's hand and is believed to be from a revival and is considered to be a "conducting" score. The same applies to those bars where there is a reduction to a dotted semibreve which divides one bar in 3/1 into two bars and then is contradicted literally by a return to 3/1 two bars later where the same material is used with the only difference is that the vocal parts have been exchanged so that the crotchets that were sung by Nero are now sung by Poppea. If the missing barlines and the reduction to a dotted semibreve were related to meter and accenting the first beat then it would be consistent to see these changes for all repeated material in the manuscript and that is not the case. I do regret using a modern tempo mark at the start and may change that to the Andante word used in the Russian score and the manuscript does have an "A" letter written at the start followed by a squiggle which does seem to be a "3". Let me do some research and if the "A" means Andante I will alter the score to match the Russian score. All these bars I refer to are at the start of the manuscript and later on there are similar issues and I have taken the same decisions that these issues are irrelevant and that the barlines should be added and removed where needed. Please see my note for 6th July 2022 where I discussed this issue which means that I forgot that I had already given my views on the matter. Still it does need restating if only to remind myself of the decisions I took all those years ago.
I am finishing the last three Carcassi scores from Op.60 but they are proving a bit more difficult to typeset so it may to be while before they are finished. I would also like after finishing Op.60 to return to the first twelve scores with a view to improving them. It was only from Study 13 that I found my stride. I look at the first twelve scores and I can see where I went wrong in the layout.
Richard
