That's a really good point Christopher ... I suspect the composer is
perhaps, a little inept at orchestration ... but I could, of course,
be wrong.
Dean
On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:02 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Thank you for the kind comments, Chuck (even though we don't agree
on this!) but I was thinking about this again (too much time on my
hands?) and the thing that strikes me as odd is that after F
woodwinds, MP brass is not going to sound like much of a dynamic
change, subito or otherwise. FF woodwinds to P brass, yes, but not
as the composer is writing it. Or more likely (given the relative
strengths of each section) FF brass to subito p woodwinds. That
would make more sense to my eye and ear.
I think maybe the advice somebody gave early on, to talk to the
composer to find out what his intention was, is the best bet here,
because I don't really see it.
Christopher
On Sep 18, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Chuck Israels wrote:
I have respect for Christopher's opinions. They are consistently
thought out and "finished," but I disagree in this case. I
believe that consistency in notation is essential in order to get
consistent results. Over-explaining in one instance will train
musicians to expect it in other situations. Notation should be as
complicated as it needs to be and no more complicated, as simple
as it needs to be and no simpler. I understand the desire to save
rehearsal time and effort on the part of the conductor/director,
but the incomplete nature of written communication is what makes
the director's job (and rehearsals) necessary. If it were my
score, and I were concerned about this spot, my first instinct
would be to put a note in the score for the conductor - maybe an
eyeglass symbol at the brass entrance. My 2c.
Chuck
On Sep 17, 2009, at 4:55 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Sep 17, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Ryan Beard wrote:
Working on a piece for large ensemble. The composer has a
passage for woodwinds at forte. Immediately after the WW finish,
the brass comes in at mezzo piano. The composer has marked "mp
subito" in the brass parts, but I think the inclusion of subito
is unnecessary since the brass haven't been playing before
this.What's your opinion?
I've seen two types of markings: those that tell the player what
to do and those that communicate the overall dynamic. Mostly we
see the first type (so flutes might be marked F and the brass MP
in the same passage, to make it balance) but sometimes we see an
overall dynamic and have to balance ourselves (so we might all be
marked MF and the flutes play F and the brass play MP anyway.)
I see no problem with subito mp in a part that hasn't played yet,
because musicians are listening to one another and might be
inclined to follow the dynamic they hear REGARDLESS of what is
marked. Dynamics are not set decibel levels like the Finale
playback would have us believe; they are subject to
interpretation by the performers (with help from the conductor,
if he gives it!)
I'm with Lee here (seemingly against the general consensus).
Christopher
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Canto ergo sum
And,
I'd rather be composing than decomposing
Dean M. Estabrook
http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
