On 15 Feb 2006 at 23:09, Owain Sutton wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > > My point is about how the notation indicates instructions to the > > performers. In that regard, I don't think that the dynamic markings > > beyond ppp and fff have any reliable interpretation that makes any > > sense. > > > > If, for instance, a passage is at ppp and you want to get softer, I > > think I'd just write "softer" and if even more is needed, "softer > > still." These are clearly relative dynamic indications, without the > > stepped gradations implied by adding p's to the dynamic indication. > > I fail to see how this necessarily has an end result any different to > 'voodoo dynamics' (which is beginning to scream 'band name' at me...)
Well, I don't know that the voodoo dynamics are ineffective. I just find them intellectually and philosophically indefensible for the very reason that they can't really be defined as specifically and explicitly as the form in which they are notated implies. > > I think that's my problem with pppp and ppppp. It's just not clear > > to me that there can be any difference between the two except in a > > context, and there is no rationally definable difference (in the > > mathematical sense of the word "rational," not the logical sense) > > between the two. > > Unlike the clear and rational difference between 'softer' and 'softer > still'? There is no implied rational relationship in those terms. They are deliberately and intentionally vague, unlike the overspecified pppppp, which implies some specific relationship to ppppp and ppppppp. And, in the end, the only thing those mean in order is "softer" and "softer still." So why not just say that in the first place? -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
