> > Back in the early 1990s, I had an orchestral piece performed > where the concertmaster changed a whole group of critical > bowings without consulting me. Why? It "sounded better" and > was "easier on the players' muscles". Hoo-boy. Almost as bad > as the pianist who said she'd injure her wrists trying to > play one of my compositions. >
> > >Some harmonics can ONLY be produced on a certain > >string in a certain way, while others can be > >produced in more than one way, and since the tone > >quality changes it's really up to you to specify > >what you want (or think you want), just as it's > >up to you to KNOW that what you write is playable. > > Every string instrument is different in sound, too. Why so > precious? How about when a harmonic can be produced either as a natural harmonic or an artificial one - if a composer prefers the timbre of one over the other, which we can hopefully agree is a major difference, why not notate it as such? > Sure, it may be harder to read, but that's the economics of > it all, isn't it? I certainly don't believe that a composer > should spend more time so players can avoid keeping up to > snuff on their techniques. I refer to my Britten example from earlier - I honestly don't think I could have worked out how to play it without the mechanical instruction of the original. And similarly in Stravinsky, I'm thinking of one passage in his concerto where the violin *could* play artificial harmonics throughout, but can also produce the same pitches with a much stronger tone by the use of far less obvious natural harmonics. If a composer creates something specifically to make idiomatic use of an instrument in the latter way, notating it as such is absolutely correct. _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
