Hi Owain,
On 23 Mar 2008, at 10:36 AM, Owain Sutton wrote:
I don't see why it's necessary for the mental countoff to be in x/4 or
x/8. (He does generally make quavers his standard pulse rather than
crotchets.) In the example I gave, the indication is that the pulse
of
the 2/10 bar is at quaver=68 indication. On arriving at the change to
3/8, the pulse slows by one-fifth. It's not necessary to be thinking
about any incompleteness of tuplets, or about placing every bar
against
a continuous mental x/8 pulse. With a little practice these changes
feel completely natural - less work than plenty of my pupils have
needed
when encountering 6/8 for the first time.
First, I will make you a deal -- the US finally adopts the metric
system and begins referring to "soccer" by its proper name,
"football." In exchange, the UK and everywhere else that uses the
adorably quaint terms "minim," "crotchet," and "hemidemisemiquaver"
finally gets on board with using the names for note durations that
actually tell you how long the notes are. Deal?
[I'm joking, of course. The US will never refer to the game where you
kick the ball with your feet as "football."]
Anyway, back to Ferneyhough, I'm trying to make sure I understand you:
Measure 1 is 2/10. The tempo is eighth note = 68. So, based on the
idea that a "tenth note" = 1/10th of a whole note, the two "tenth
notes" are the rhythmic equivalent of two eighth-note quintuplets. But
the initial pulse is not tenth note = 68, it's eighth note = 68. Tenth
notes move faster than eighth notes (125% faster, in fact).
Measure 2 is in 3/8. The tempo has not changed. It's still eighth note
= 68. But now we have normal eighth notes.
What you are suggesting is that the countoff (mental or otherwise)
would be in tenth notes, not eighth notes. But what this effectively
means is that the 2/10 measure isn't being felt as a 2/10 measure at
all, it's being felt as a 2/8 measure in a faster tempo (e = 85),
followed by an immediate metric modulation to a 3/8 measure at e=68.
This is fine for notational purposes, I guess (although I personally
would be loath to write it that way). But it won't *feel* like a bar
of 2/10 to anyone, because there's no rhythmic point of reference.
Instead, it will feel like a metric modulation.
On the other hand, if you are a rock band, chugging along in a heavy
4/4 beat, and then you suddenly drop a 2/10 bar in at the end of
phrase -- i.e., extend a measure by 2 eighth note quintuplets --
*that* is going to actually feel like 2/10.
(People who think this is a ridiculous example should check out this
YouTube clip, sent to me by a commenter on my blog:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wt9XlVqKYhA
It's the band Soundgarden, who were very big in the 1990's. See if you
can spot the measure of 5/12.)
I must make the point is that it's a mistake to assume that
Ferneyhough
has expectations of robotic accuracy - he has stated clearly that this
is not the case. (The first tempo of Etudes Transcendentales is
actually not 68 as I said, but 'ca.68'.)
No, I get that. I just don't like it. His scores strike me as being
massively overloaded with notational affectations, stuff that he knows
damn well will never make it into the performance, but includes as a
purely intellectual conceit.
Sure, he may not be able to clap the rhythms, but it's not his job
to do
so.
Boy do I ever disagree with that. I would be embarrassed to put a
piece of music in front of musicians if I couldn't at least clap or
sing all of the rhythms reasonably accurately. If the composer can't
be bothered to learn his own music, why should anyone else?
If he can hear the rhythms in his head,
If you can't clap it, then you *can't* hear the rhythms in your head.
Cheers,
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
