"Laurie (ukonline)" wrote: > > A difference between two pieces of notation is musically relevant if and > only if it means they should sound different. > (20 words)
Nice one, Laurie :-) Except, I think it ought to be "will sound different" rather than "should sound different", that is, what matters in the end is not what the guy who wrote the notes down intended, but how the performing musicians actually interpret the stuff. But, of course, that's my personal opinion ;-) The problem with both Laurie's definition and my modified one is that they aren't very useful. Both Laurie and Phil listed a couple of examples of notation details that are "irrelevant". Well, are they? - No Do any of the two definitions help us decide? - Hardly Phil Taylor wrote: > > The criterion of musical relevance is certainly something we should consider > when discussing extensions to the language, but I don't think it's of overriding > importance. I'm afraid I can't fully agree with you here, Phil. It isn't of overriding importance, of course, but it definitely is important. The question of which factors of music are relevant and which are irrelevant, is highly subjective and personal. Some might argue that accidentals are irrelevant, since they can't hear the difference between a c and a c sharp anyway, others might regard minute intonation variations to be of the greatest importance. Anybody who says "this notation detail is irrelevant" is necessarily wrong. If, on the other hand, he says (as Atte did) "this notation detail is irrelevant to me" - well, that's fair enough. Frank To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
