Jean-Francois Moine writes: | | >Please explain to me: would there be any difference | >between [A2g] and [gA2] ? | | In a previous discussion, some people wanted the first note to | give the length of the chord. But later, it seems that everybody | agreed using the length of the smallest note.
Hmmm ... I seem to recall that it sorta faded out without any strong conclusion. There are arguments for both approaches, and examples where each would be somewhat more convenient, but no really decisive examples of one's superiority. I'd always supported the first-note-is-length idea, because that makes it possible to control the results. If I want a chord in which one note is sounded briefly and the other held, the shortest-note approach gives me no way to write it. [DB4] and [B4D] give the same result, a 1-count chord, and there's no way to write this so it's length is 4. Well, you could write [B-D]B3, but that's not nearly as nice. It looks like syncopation when it isn't. This example is something I'd like to do, in order to write detailed transcriptions of some fiddle music. It's fairly common in several fiddle styles to use low notes (usually open strings) for a rhythmic effect, touching them briefly on the main beats while the melody continues. This often produces a long melody note with a very short "bass" note. If [B4D] has length 4, this works; if it has length 1, there's no good way to transcribe this effect. But this is somewhat a fringe case, and I can see why a non-fiddler might consider it not worth supporting. I wouldn't use it very often, because I prefer "just the melody", and I'll add such gimmicks myself, thank you very much. OTOH, sometimes it's nice to be able to write out a detailed transcription for novice fiddlers. The result is very messy and hard to read, but useful as a teaching device. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
