Re: Wording concerning figured bass in NR

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden>
To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>; "Devel" <address@hidden>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Wording concerning figured bass in NR


> Phil Holmes wrote Monday, January 21, 2013 4:16 PM
>
> > From: "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden>
> > > Phil Holmes wrote Monday, January 21, 2013 3:23 PM
> > >
> > > > In the middle of the section of the NR concerning ancient music, there 
> > > > is
> > > > this:
> > > >
> > > > Figured bass support
> > > > There is limited support for figured bass notation from the Baroque
> > > > period;
> > > > see Section 2.7.3
> > > > [Figured bass], page 393.
> > > >
> > > > I would have thought the current level of support is fair to good, so
> > > > can't
> > > > see why it's described as limited.  I'm also somewhat unsure why 
> > > > Figured
> > > > bass is referred to in the section on Ancient music, when it's got a
> > > > section
> > > > all to itself.  Should I delete it?
> > >
> > > I'd prefer to see just the word "limited" deleted so the cross-reference
> > > from
> > > Ancient to Chord notation is retained, but I don't feel strongly about 
> > > it.
> >
> > I considered that, but figured bass is really a baroque notation, from
> > 1600-odd to 1750 ish; ancient is medieval and renaissance: a different
> > period.
>
> OK, I agree then.
>
> Trevor

Pushed to staging as 00efa880d2b7632c88864f7bf2e6f46cc225867e

--
Phil Holmes