On 17 Mar 2010 at 12:12, John Howell wrote: > Proper baroque articulations with the bow are a > little harder to get across, and so is playing > with notes inegals (which is not QUITE the same > thing as swing--more like an Irish fiddler's > "lilt").
I don't know what that latter style is (I'm not a fan of the repertory), but I despair over the brain-dead misunderstanding of notes inegals. The main point is not alteration of the rhythmic values but of the weighting of the notes. The slight alteration of the lengths of the notes is a side effect of the weighting, and will be perceived even when it's not there. And those players who can't do it except with 2:1 ratio between the strong/weak notes (and I mean in length, not weight) drive me crazy (most of them are keyboard players, because they have to do it with articulation alone, since they can't do it with weight). The other thing that gets my goat is that so many players don't understand that the amount of inegal is VARIABLE, and that variability is an expressive tool that allows the performer all sorts of variety of expression. But, again, this bumps up against the problem that a lot of unimaginative people have, that they want a cut- and-dried solution to a problem, and don't want to have to experiment or interpret to find the best solution. And, of course, the notes inegal problem and the swing problem are virtually identical. But, like A415, a wrong view of what is correct seems to have ossified in the Early Music world. The A415 compromise is a pragmatic one, and maybe the 2:1 inegal is also practical for professional groups that don't have rehearsal time, but both are historically wrong and lead to performances that lack the nuance and color that would be possible with more flexible approaches to the style. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
