On 8 Jul 2005 at 18:19, Richard Yates wrote: > > A score is a recipe for performing the piece. > > This assumption does seem to lead to your outrage.
Er, what else is it? > > 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.... > > Good analogy, and yet you are the one that is the most serious about > it rather than being amused, puzzled, intrigued, or entertained. But it tells me *nothing* about how to perform it. I just ignore the extra, useless decimal places and play Q = 60 and measure out as close to exactly 1 teaspoon as I'm able. If that's going to be the result, I just don't see what is accomplished by going into decimal places. > >....and not something that accomplishes anything in > > regard to enhancing the results. > > You are insisting that you know what result is intended. You are > probably wrong. I don't know what result is intended because the fake precision gets in the way of conveying what is meant. You're arguing that greater precision indicates more freedom for the interprer. To me that is like using a toothpick to dig the hole to plant a tree, or attempting to use a shovel to pick your teeth. The communcation tool that is used to convey the information is being used in a way that implies exactly the opposite of what you claim the composer is trying to convey. What the hell would be wrong with Q = c. 61? That seems to me, in its generality, to far more precisely convey what you claim is the composer's intent, since it communicates quite directly that there's a general range of acceptable tempos. I would say notation that conveys that generality more precisely represents the recipe for performing the piece than notation that overspecifies a performance parameter to a level of precision that is impossible to realize. > > I get angry when people defend such blatantly > > obvious stupidity. > > I don't know that I am defending it as much as suggesting that the > purpose of the marking may be (almost certainly is) intended in a > broader context than a literal, concrete reading. > > Maybe a better analogy would be someone looking at an Impressionist > painting and saying, "If he wanted me to see a person he shouldn't > have made it all blurry, goddammit!" Again, you resort to the visual analogy, which simply doesn't work here. Looking at a painting is analogous to listening to a piece of music, as opposed to performing from the score of a piece of music, which is a completely different task. -- 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
