Hi Dennis, I use accents, dynamics, and slurs as appropriate, but I also rely on the musical instincts of the performers to find the lines and shape the phrases appropriately. It's obviously easier when I am the one conducting the work, but I also feel that performances of my work where I'm not involved in the rehearsal process are more or less out of my hands anyway.
I am surprised to learn that your experience is that performers "loathe" the square bracket above, which seems to me the most obvious solution to your problem! Certainly that sort of thing seems preferable to a confusing mismash of odd beam groupings that require the performers to pencil in all the downbeats below the part in order to be able to follow the conductor. It seems to me there are many ways to indicate "a shift in articulation or a change of phrasing or a mere indication of lift" other than "ametrical" beaming. Cheers, - DJA ----- WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org On 1 Jun 2010, at 10:42 AM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: > On Tue, June 1, 2010 10:28 am, Darcy James Argue wrote: >> Don't you generally want bowing to coincide with phrasing? > > Generally but certainly not always. When the phrase is longer than the bowing, > I will put in a phrasing slur and let the section leader figure out how to > split the bowing among the players so there's no break in the sound. > >> I'm not sure what a "false" sense of beat placement even means. > > Because players often misconstrue accents as, well, accented notes. When all > you want is the music shaped to the time or, say, to lift away from the > rhythmic pattern rather than accent its beginning (not THUMP-bum-bummy), the > choice of tools is very few: change time signature (doesn't work in multiple > different parts), use one of the accent marks (which have different rules of > execution), use slurs (which don't work if you don't want it legato), put in > hairpins (which like accents might not be the right thing), use a square > bracket above (which, having done that, I've learned performers loathe), or > use rhythmic beaming. What are the other options? > >> I mean, for example: I have a piece called "Zeno" where at the beginning, the >> guitar sounds like it's playing in 5/4, the piano sounds like it's playing in >> 12/8, the percussion (pandeiro) sounds like it's playing in 2/4 with 10/8 >> accents, the bass sounds like it's playing in 3/4, and the initial melody >> (alto flute+bass clarinet+trumpet in bucket) needs to be played accurately >> but >> phrased in a flowing, floating way that disregards the time signature >> entirely. This is all accomplished without recourse to individual time >> signatures (everyone's part is notated in 3/2) or idiosyncratic beaming. > > How do they know what to do? You use no accent marks? How do they know what > the rhythm is? Do you talk them through it? And what if it's constantly > changing (as in my two examples)? > >> When I work with a new group of musicians (as I did last week), I do have to >> remind them that any barlines are for ease of reading only, and to read the >> accents on the page, not the accents they would expect based on the time >> signature. But I would have to do that no matter how I chose to notate my >> music. > > But accents don't mean the same thing if you want, say, just a shift in > articulation or a change of phrasing or a mere indication of lift among > intertwining lines. > > We might be dealing with the differences in musical styles or approaches here? > > Dennis > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
