Ken Durling wrote:
At 03:37 AM 7/8/2005, you wrote:
Because a serious musician can set a metronome to 80 and at least try
to make an attempt to follow that tempo, while nobody has a metronome
that I've ever seen which will give a 69.75 tempo so nobody can even
try to follow it, even if they want to.
No but often we ask ourselves or others to "lay back" on a beat, or to
"push" it slightly without actually altering the basic pulse. Maybe
this is a way to try and notate that. Set your metronome to 69 and lean
on it ever so slightly.
Actually, Ferneyhough's apparently-ludicrous metronome markings have a
logic to them. A score I have in front of me begins with 8th=54, the
next marking is 8th=60.75, then 47.25 and back to 54.
This may seem an impossible task - until you realise that the ratio
54:60.75 is the same as 8:9, and 54:47.25 is 8:7. So they're actually
rather simple shifts in tempo.
On the other hand, and this has probably been mentioned, I've read that
B.F. is more concerned with the *effect* produced by a virtuoso musician
essaying some of these "extreme" effects, than their absolute accuracy.
And, one is not to read that as " he doesn't really care how it sounds"
- the effect (of intensity) will only result if you make a concerted
effort. I think it's a response to the prevalence of the virtuoso
tradition, a sort of "that will give them something to do." We want
to hear the result of the interaction.
That's spot on. I've also seen him criticise students for using
*unnecessary* complexity.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
