David W. Fenton wrote:
On 26 Mar 2008 at 6:39, dhbailey wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 23 Mar 2008 at 21:55, Owain Sutton wrote:
(Why
notate anything as 2/2, if it's likely to be heard as 2/4?)
This kind of comment makes me crazy.
You notate it as 2/2 because MUSICIANS PLAY IT DIFFERENTLY THAN THE
PLAY 2/4.
Certain styles of music make more sense in 2/2 than they would in 4/4
or 2/4.
You can really hear a difference in music performed in 2/4 rather than
2/2?
You know perfectly well that's not what I said!
[snip]
But if it's performed differently as you claim, being a sound-based art
form, won't there be a difference in the sound?
By claiming that the musicians will perform music differently [your
word] if written in 2/2 from music written in 2/4, then there must be a
difference in the sound. And if there's a difference in the sound, you
must be able to hear it. If you can't hear a difference in the sound,
is there really a difference in the way the music is played?
I agree that there is a different psychological aspect to various
movements in a multi-movement work, where one duple meter may be 2/4 and
another be 2/2, but I still maintain that given the same piece of music
with the same metronome indication for the unit of beat, there won't be
a difference among competent musicians between two versions of the same
piece, one in 2/2 and one in 2/4.
So we have to agree to disagree. :-)
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
