On 8 Jul 2005 at 17:14, Richard Yates wrote: > > > > I can't see any obvious meaning to 60.75. > > Then isn't the next hypothesis that there is a non-obvious meaning? I > think it is overwhelmingly likely that the composer was entirely aware > that the two-decimal point precision is impossible to follow or > maintain. It seems ludicrous to think otherwise. You seem locked into > the assumptions that the marking MUST be intended concretely. . . .
It's funny how decimal points seem in my crazy world to be associated with precision. > . . . There > are lots of other possibilities - indeed even subtle and artistic > ones. Maybe it's a puzzle; maybe it's a parody; maybe it's a satire on > overprecision; maybe it's purpose is to reveal musicians who have a > bullheaded insistence on literalism. Someone specifies a number to a precision that is humanly possible to realize or perceive, and *I'm* the one who insists on interpreting it with precision? > It is as if someone were looking at this: > > http://www.comviz.com.ulaval.ca/module1/Images/MagrittePipe.jpg > > and saying "Of course it's a pipe! You can't fool me!" Ridiculous analogy -- has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. A pictorial representation of an object, no matter how detailed, is still a depiction. A score is a recipe for performing the piece. Specifying a metronome marking of 60.75 would be like specifying 1.00456 teaspoons of sugar in a recipe -- not something to be taken at all seriously, and not something that accomplishes anything in regard to enhancing the results. I'm done on this issue. I get angry when people defend such blatantly obvious stupidity. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
