At 03:04 PM 2/13/06 -0500, David W. Fenton wrote: >The reason is that I believe as a practice tool they are not useful, >since they encourage non-musical performance. The only purpose they >have is as a reference for identifying the general tempo, but I >believe that's only really necessary when the music is so obscure (or >badly written) as to make it impossible to figure out the appropriate >tempo range just from the musical text and the tempo/mood markings.
The markings are quite specific in many contemporary scores -- not to be 'metronomic' but simply to be precise about where the tempo is to fall both absolutely and in relation to other places. >Second, metronome markings tend to overspecify tempos. If you provide >a single one, does that mean "approximately" or "exactly"? If the >former, how much varation is appropriate? For most music, it seems to >me that it's better to provide a range of appropriate metronome >settings. That would apply to "most music" because the specificity of markings was only extraordinarily important in the era 1945-1975 (generalizing there) and continues to be critical among the New Complexity composers. But exact tempos still remain crucial in electroacoustic pieces with fixed accompaniment, or in any piece where the relationships between rhythms have to be expressed with great clarity. (Karkoschka identifies 21 contemporary methods of marking tempo outside the traditional types.) >But in that case, what do you do to show proportions? If you have >Q=80-96 do you then do H=80-96? If you do, then the interpreter has >to remember that this was the tempo range of the previous section and >that this indicates an equivalence between the two subdivisions. By indicating approximation to start with, you've set up a puzzle based on your own suggestion. If you assume it to be specific rather than a range, then even if the performer varies it, the resulting relationship is correct and the tempo is also likely to be closer to reality. Also, the word "ca." comes to mind, a very handy way of letting the tempo flex a bit. But keep in mind that if a performer is lax with the tempo marking, that same performer might be lax with the rhythmic relationship in the 'x=y' equation. >It seems to me that <-q=h-> is completely unambiguous and easy to >understand. Or not, unless it's explained. :) >And isn't that what we want? Don't we want the interpreters of the >music we're engraving to be able to perform it without scratching >their heads or without having to jump back to the beginning to >understand what a metronome marking means in context? Or without >having to stop and check the metronome before going to the next >section? Maybe not. Having squirmed through performances of my own work where the metronome markings were entirely ignored (and not because of technical difficulties), I can underscore that the more lattitude that's given, the more that will be taken. I think we've had this discussion before? We specify notes, harmonies, tunings, orchestrations, etc., but when it comes to tempos and dynamics, we're assumed only to want what's approximate and leave it in the hands of a performer. Where I am specific, I would expect the performance to be specific. Dennis -- Please participate in my latest project: http://maltedmedia.com/people/bathory/365-2007.html _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
