David W. Fenton wrote:
On 7 Jul 2005 at 23:36, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I think the use of a note as denominator would eliminate all these
problems. 6/8 would become 2/Q., and would also allow one to notate
6/E if one actually wanted it.
I would love this system...but....
That makes far more sense than the absolutely idiotic 12/12.
How would you replace 2/10, 7/24 etc?
I don't know, since I have seen no satisfactory explanation of what
the hell these mean.
I'm something of a Luddite in believing that things like
Ferneyhough's Q=60.75 are completely idiotic. First off, nobody can
tell without a point of comparison whether a performance is exactly
at that fractional metronome marking, and secondly, no performers
without a metronome could possibly match such a precise tempo.
The marking is at least partly tongue-in-cheek, because nobody *with* a
metronome could identify the tempo!
I'd also argue that not even the best performers could maintain such
a tempo, especially in ensemble performance. Playing with a
metronomic pulse drains all the music out of a performance, so nobody
could possibly maintain such a precisely defined tempo, so I see no
point in writing it out.
This kind of thing is just complete gibberish, from my point of view,
at least if the music is intended to be performed by human musicians.
Ferneyhough doesn't want a metronomic or mechanical approach. I've
heard him say so.
I think it's the rare performer who
ever manages precisely what is indicated.
Is that a valid argument for not indicating it at all? I don't think it is.
Of course, I'm something of a heretic in the early music world for
ignoring the relationships between meters there, too. I think it's
better to take a precise relationship as a starting point, but then
to adjust that for musical purposes.
I'm with you here. And I think Ferneyhough would be, too.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
