On 18 Apr 2010 at 19:58, timothy.price wrote: > On Apr 18, 2010, at 4:24 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > On 18 Apr 2010 at 9:40, timothy.price wrote: > > > >> On Apr 17, 2010, at 7:50 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > >>> The player could tell from the content of the music what was > >>> intended in regard to all of those parameters. So can any > >>> properly-trained modern organist. > > > > I've often thought that a good way to test musicianship is to give a > > player a passage with no dynamics, tempo marking, articulations or > > bowings and see what they make out of it. > > From a performers perspective, what you have said is fine, no > problem. > But the question about indicating performance markings was from a > composer who' apparently has ideas as to where he want dynamics. If > he wants to have the piece performed with HIS interpretation, then he > best place the marking in the score, IMHO.
Again, you're mixing contexts. The comment you quote was from my post about Bach's music, not about the original question. > >> Don't pay any attention to non-organist comments, they can be > >> misleading. > > > > If that's referring to me, > > No, I was not referring to you, but to John Howell's previous comment > about thinking it best not to include dynamic markings, but that he > was not an organist. I think that in the present instance, if you're an engraver of a MS by a dead composer, it's best to leave it alone and let the performer decide, rather than introducing your own judgements on what the dynamics should be, which may or may not be what the composer intended. So, I would agree 100% with John's remarks, which are very much in line with normal practices in editing/engraving music of dead composers where there are ambiguities. If one were to choose to supply a dynamic marking anyway, I think it would be best to clearly indicate that it is an editorial edition, thus leaving it to the performer to choose to honor it or not. But I'd tend to lean towards just leaving it out entirely, as John suggests. Most importantly, some editorial principles transcend the specifics of the instruments involved, and the editorial philosophy behind John's suggestion is one such, in my opinion. > >> Like any music for any instrumentation, write what you want to hear > >> it sound like. Romantic period instruments may have swell boxes, > >> making the stops of that manual capable of dynamics from p to f, > >> and many organ have been adapted. Stops may be applied to only one > >> manual or the pedals independently. There is usually a crescendo > >> pedal which adds stops up to full organ. > > > > "Usually?" This sounds exactly like something a non-organist, or an > > organist of every limited experience, would say. A large number of > > instruments lack swell boxes and electronic assistance like pistons > > and toe studs and the like. > > Yes, in my experience organs usually do have a crescendo pedal. No? As > I said, they only sometimes have swell boxes. Am not sure what you > are finding fault with. Hah! I have played on far more instruments that lack any form of dynamic control, because I've been trained almost entirely in older music, and played on historical instruments. So, I've personally played on more organs *without* any expression pedals or toe studs or pistons. The point is that there is no "usually" about it. Each organ is different, but within a particular tradition of organ building, one is likely to find particular characteristics. I won't go into the details of which traditions are which, but if you're a non-organist composing for a particular organ, find out what its capabilities are. A long crescendo on a tracker organ in 18th- century style may be something that a virtuosos is able to do -- I once heard Gerre Hancock do it in an improvization on the 1976 Flentrop at Oberlin (a tracker with entirely mechanical action and stops), managing a 4- or 5-minute crescendo just by gradually adding stops (without the assistance of a stop puller), but it's a virtuoso technique, and not one you'd put into a piece unless you knew the player was going to be able to pull it off. > >> You may indicate different dynamic > >> marking for each staff. Organs are closer to the nuances possible > >> with an orchestra. > > > > I don't know any organists who would agree with this. It's a red > > herring of the late 19th century. An exception, of course, would be > > the Wurlitzer theater organ of the early 20th century. To hear > > what's possible there, I'd recommend this program: > > > > http://pipedreams.publicradio.org/listings/2010/1014/ > > I do not know of any other solo instrument which compares in colors > available or the control which is possible with a pipe organ. (not > including digital keyboards of course) Do you? No, but that's a very different statement than the one making bogus comparisons to the orchestra, which really doesn't have anything at all to do with the tonal world of organ playing in any but a very narrow period. The comparison to the orchestra is very much an old- style view of the organ, and one which as not been taken seriously except as a commonplace for the better part of the last century. I mean, the Holtkamp experiments began in the 1930s, and E.Power Biggs was promoting 18th-century style organs in the 1950s! -- 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
