Ayuda con partitura

#1 por xxxxxxxxxx26 el 24/10/2015
que tal amigos esta es una obra de johann nikolaus tischer perdonaran mi ignorancia pero no se muy bien leer partitura y hay unos signos aqui que no entiendo, las enmarco en rosado, como se ejecutarian estas partes?, por ejemplo la primera que enmarco pareciera ser un sostenido pero si lo fuera daria en la misma tecla de la nota si siguiente por que segun la partitura la nota si seria bemol y la sostenido y si bemol en esta caso darian en la misma tecla, entonces no se, y esos signos que enmarco tampoco son becuadros el los escribe de otra manera mas adelante. tambien unos signos que parecen unos sietes (a los que le coloque la flecha) como se ejecutarian y que significan, perdonaran mi ignorancia amigos, si me ayudan con esto me ya puedo sacar el resto, les agradesdco mucho si me pueden ayudar.

esta obra se llama Partita g-minor y este es el primer movimiento y se llama ''introduttione'' en este enlace pueden encontrar la obra completa
http://klassik-resampled.de/index.php/en/komponisten-abc/t/tischer-johann-nikolaus?hitcount=0 aunque creo que esta algo cambiada en cuanto a la partitura original

La verdad es que el midi de este primer movimiento no lo pude encontrar por ningun lado, el midi del resto de movimientos si los encontre

#2 por vagar el 24/10/2015
No sé mucho de música antigua, pero por la armadura y por la relación de lo que suena con lo que está escrito yo diría que la voz superior no está en clave de sol, sino en clave de do en primera línea. La nota con el sostenido sería entonces Fa#5. Los "sietes" son silencios de semicorchea.
#3 por xxxxxxxxxx26 el 24/10/2015
muchas gracias amigo, si alguien mas tiene alguna opinion se agradece, mi otra pregunta es si esos signos que enmarco de primeras, seran sostenidos o no, o seran otra cosa

gracias de nuevo!!!
#4 por vagar el 24/10/2015
Sí, son sostenidos.
#5 por ∞≠∞ el 24/10/2015
Efectivamente coincido con Igarrido. Se trata de música barroca y en el barroco era muy habitual escribir la mano derecha del teclado en clave de Do en 1a. Así están escritas la mayoría de las obras de Bach.

Los símbolos marcados son efectivamente los sostenidos de fa, la sensible, y silencios de semicorchea en los compases 5 y 6.

Lo que me llama la atención es que no te extrañe que la armadura tenga 3 bemoles cuando está en solo (la armadura solo debería tener dos)

Realmente es una armadura de solo dos bemoles, también una costumbre de la época colocar una misma nota alterada dos veces en la armadura, en el grave y en el agudo. (No confundir por tanto con una "verdadera" armadura de 3 bemoles) En este caso la pista es esencial puesto que los dos bemoles superpuestos en la mano derecha corresponden a la nota Mib y al estar en la 2a línea y justo por encima de la 5a la clave debe ser Do en 1a.

Aquí un ejemplo de Bach en el que se lee claramente la clave de do en 1a en la mano derecha. La obra es el famoso preludio nº1 del Teclado Bien Temperado.

#6 por xxxxxxxxxx26 el 25/10/2015
muchisimas gracias amigos, creo que con estas explicaciones ya podre sacar el resto, da gusto tener compañeros como ustedes en hispasonic al tomarse el tiempo para responder inquietudes como esta.

Todo sea por el Arte, Larga vida al arte y a Hispasonic!!!!!!!!!!!!!

saludes y gracias otravez
#7 por fahl5 el 06/11/2015
Sorry I do not talk spanish at all.

I just put this words "unque creo que esta algo cambiada en cuanto a la partitura original" in the google translator and understood some speculation that I would have changed anything of the score in my recording of this piece (What is of course completly wrong since my recording is based on the score shown in this thread which is available at the imslp:

I do not know how the subject was discussed in the following responses.

But to me the main misleading problem seems to be the less known old C-clef on the bottomline which was used for the right-hand system, which is the reason why the music - when you read it like a modern G-clef - seems to be two notes higher (and of would course be awfull wrong sounding).

If you still might have any question do not hesitate to ask:

#8 por vagar el 06/11/2015
Hi Steffen, and welcome to the forum.

Thank you very much for your clarification. Fortunately, some forum members have already addressed the OP's confusion in our answers, and expanded on it (duplication of flats on both octaves, so it is not a true three-flat key signature). If you read #2 , "clave de do en primera línea" means C-clef on the first line.

There is no speculation on your rendition of the piece at all, G minor can be clearly heard, so don't worry. ;-)

It is not completely clear from the description stated in your website, but I take it all the recordings there are sequenced, not played live, right? They sound pretty good, you must put a lot of work on them. Thanks for sharing!

#9 por fahl5 el 07/11/2015
lgarrido escribió:
It is not completely clear from the description stated in your website, but I take it all the recordings there are sequenced,

If the Titel "klassik-resampled" really leaves anthing unclear, you can find the answer on the very first Startingpage in the Tab "Workflow" with Slides about what and how I am creating the recordings of my site. (However "sequencing" is of course only one of the most basic things I am doing, to acheve the results you can hear on my site.)

More Information about my project you can find in the "Information" section of it (also reached with the "about" link at the bottom).

Just read the first Page "Interpretation in the digital age": http://klassik.s-fahl.de/index.php/en/home/information/the-idea-of-klassik-resampled

At least the following sentence you can read there in one of the first paragraphs should answered your question:
"Exclusively produced with "digital audio workstation" and the most advanced available sample libraries Klassik-resampled presents thousands of recordings....."

That in spite those hints and informations about my project you still seem to need clarification in your question, would almost have been a bit complimentary for me, if traditional "playing" music would have been really in any noteworthy kind of importnce for me and what I do, (which is honestly simply not at all the case) ;-).

..."see you" (on "klassik-resampled")
fahl5 :-D
#10 por vagar el 07/11/2015

Resampling can mean a number of things and there are also different ways of using a DAW and sample libraries. You also use the word "recordings", which introduces some uncertainty about the procedures used to produce them.

So I would say just the name of the project and the text in the "Information" section don't make completely clear to the casual (emphasis on casual) visitor, listening to the music through laptop speakers, the exact mechanics of what you are doing. At least that was my experience, but maybe I am a particularly dense visitor specimen.

Even if you consider the aforementioned mechanics irrelevant, and I have the feeling you have had to deal with some prejudice on that front, some visitors might find interesting to reflect on the subject of whether careful sequencing can produce comparable or even superior expressive results to using a controller live.

The slides certainly do give a definite answer about the method employed, though, but I had not seen those since there is not a direct link to the "Workflow" section in any of the pages linked in this thread.

Just some feedback, for whatever is worth. :birras:
#11 por fahl5 el 07/11/2015
Hi Igarido
Thank You for your feedback. In general I do want to be completly clear with my project about what I am doing, that was the reason why I put the slides about the workflow directly on the very first page. And I do still think that the name of my project does not pretend anything wrong about my project nor did I anywhere else.

That is also true for using the word "recording" which is in no way dependent from producing music in the way they did it two hunderd years ago. The proper defintiion of "recording "is an electrical or mechanical inscription and re-creation of sound waves," if we can trust Wikipedia in this aspect and that is exactly what I do when I produce one of the recordings audible on my site.

On the other hand, the main reason of my project is not to argue which way to produce music might be superior to which other. Thats why I do not feel any need to start on every page a discussion about the problems of traditional "playing" around with serious music (which is particularly in respect to the very often musically definitly not that reasonable "mechanical" deficiencies of traditional "playing" very often quite far from being a very convincing way to reproduce musical ideas.)

My thoughts about what is attractive for me in the way I am working are accessible from everywhere via the "Information"-menu and the "about" link. (And even in this page are above the text also some unmistakeable slides showing how I use a DAW to produce my recordings)

The only real reason for my project is the music I love and that I do have very much fun to produce it in the way I do. For me it is a great way to discover music and ways of their interpretation, which are as far as I can see pretty hardly reachable with other means.

At least today there are really very few "traditional" musicians which were able to impress me with what they are doing (there were some in the past but I do not know that much any more today). Thats why I personally can not se any occasion to discuss anything what might really pretend to be in any general meaning "superior" to a serious usage of the currently avaible technical means.

If we would realy start that kind of discussion, I personally honestly fear that many if not most of them who nowadays simply go on to "play" music as if electricity was still not invented, seem to me simply to lazy to update their procedures to the actual stage of development, trying to euphemize their shortcomings with a more or less not very reasonable abstract Idea of authenticity.

But however "chacun a son gout". At least I do have the impression that this is nothing I have to discuss more than I already did in my project.

However thank you once more for your feedback, which was nevertheless quite interesting for me.


Hilos similares

Respuesta rápida

Regístrate o para poder postear en este hilo