Peter Castine wrote: > >It's a notational convention seen in Ferneyhough, Boulez, and Schnebel >(and a few others). The rhytmic and metric notions involved go back to >Cowell (who would have used an even more idiosyncratic notation). I have >read suggestions that the composers of isometric motets may have even had >similar things in mind, but I am not sufficiently involved in that area >of music history to judge.
It's true that the late medieval mannerist or 'ars subtilior' repertoire presents the most difficult music created before the 20th century, some of it isorhythmic but not all of it. But for someone well versed in the notation it would not have been difficult to read, just difficult to perform because of the complex interaction among the rhythmically independent parts. Which seems to have been the whole point! That era, bridging into the early 15th century, saw the realization of the inherent complexity of a notation that began with straightforward modal notation 200+ years before. Ever since the mid-15th century notation has gradually become simplified and standardized--until today!--and still today for 99.99% of all music written. In fact, 16th century notation can be easily sightread as long as one understands how to interpret the occasional ligatures, coloration, and mensuration and proportion signs. (Same for 13th century music, but you have to know a whole other set of rules.) Piece of cake for renaissance dance music and a great deal of straightforward sacred and secular music. John John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
