David W. Fenton wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 at 0:34, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 7 Jul 2005 at 23:36, Owain Sutton wrote:
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.
It's not an argument against including metronome markings. It's an
argument against false precision in defining those markings.
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.
But that approach makes a mockery of 2-decimal-point precision.
Why is it inapproptiate to give decimal-point metronome marks which will
be ignored, but perfectly appropriate to state "Q=80" and see it equally
ignored? (Although I'm not necessarily stating that this is the reason
Ferneyhough uses these metronome markings.)
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
