Mark Lew wrote:
I'm not arguing for sloppy ambiguity, but specificity in the score yields diminishing returns and there comes a point where it is no longer helpful. That point may not be the same for all of us, and on that point I think you and I probably do differ, but I think that difference is one of degree.
Well put. I remember my first professional orchestra commission after getting through Indiana University's grad school in music composition. I used my training to insert all the things into the score that I learned and were necessary to getting the doctorate thesis (a composition) approved.
The conductor of the new piece, who later became a friend in spite of my music, just laughed at me. I'll never forget how he pointed to one of my instructions and asked me what in the world I thought the conductor was for -- didn't I think he could do his job?
Then again, Mahler was a conductor and he wrote paragraphs of instructions in his scores.
I have to agree with Mark: figure out for yourself where the diminishing returns begin and go with that. Besides, I still get flummoxed by questions I never anticipate. For example, I sometimes get asked if an accidental in one octave affects another octave. (Where are these otherwise fine musicians taught anyway?) I find it an especially strange question when the music is far from tonal.
I think it is more important in a score to try and convey the spirit and style to musicians rather than bogging them down in minutia that could ruin the outcome.
-Randolph Peters _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
