My approach, although I don't think I've done anything quite like B.F., is to always give the performer something they can translate "on the fly." An example was a tempo transition in one of my pieces that I could hear very clearly, but took me a few hours over a couple of days to figure out what it was. What it came down to was a change from a quarter note at 144 to one at 90, or a .625 or 1.6 (2/3) change. The way I indicated it in the score - and actually how I finally identified it - was by showing that 5 triplet eighths - one triplet and two of another triplet - equalled the new quarter, a pretty simple increase of 2/3 it turns out. This at least gives the conductor (or performer as the case may be) a reference point, something to prepare internally based on the old tempo, the most common approach to "metric modulation. This IMO, is the best approach to such moments - give a reference point in the old tempo. It's hard to imagine a situation in which this wouldn't ! be practical.
Ken > >>> 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. > >> And should have been notated as such. > > > > In many cases the new 'deciaml' metronome marking is reached by an > > accel/rall from the old tempo - how would you notate that? > > > > Look, either there is a proportion or there isn't. If there is, you can > put it in a tempo marking (e.g.: "8:7 faster"), and if there isn't, you > can't put it in a time sig. Throwing in rits. or accels. makes no > difference. > > Andrew Stiller > Kallisti Music Press > http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
