Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
David W. Fenton wrote: On 26 Mar 2008 at 8:18, Chuck Israels wrote: Joe Schwantner writes gorgeous music that I find difficult to read (my limitation - not the notation's) because he makes a point of choosing small note values; It seems to me that this statement of yours show that you agree with my point. Remember, I wasn't claiming that two meters *can't* be played identically, just that they likely will *not* be if there is a clear stylistic convention if which the piece is a part. Now you've added that final condition, which you hadn't made before. I agree with you on this point, given a clear stylistic convention. But previously you were making blanket statements and then getting upset when we disagreed with your blanket statements. With that condition, I agree with you. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
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 Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
AW: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
I agree with Christopher. But I think it is although a matter of timing and space in between the counted beats. Playing Leroy Andersons Trumpeters Lullaby in 4/4 makes no sense. This would be like playing trumpet while wearing a too small tuxedo. No space for the music. Using certain meters goes along with certain feelings. All Blues??? A master piece. Do not notate it, do not read it, feel it. Notes and rests are totally useless for that kind of music. It is too far above :-) Andrew Noah Cap -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Christopher Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. März 2008 12:39 An: finale@shsu.edu Betreff: Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough On Mar 26, 2008, at 6:39 AM, 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? Come on, now, put yourself in an audience and write the meters down that you hear, and I'll be that your movements in 2 will be correct half the time and wrong half the time, assuming you've never seen the printed music before. What's the performing difference when dividing the beat in half, if using a half-note pulse and playing quarter notes or using a quarter-note pulse and playing 8th notes? A beat divided in half is a beat divided in half. Isn't it? I know what he means, if I could jump in here. The listener might not make a distinction, but the performer reading it might react differently. In a previous post (I don't know if it made it to the board yet!) I had made a comparison using jazz, where it is easy to get eighth notes to swing in 4/4, but hard to get quarter notes to swing in 4/2 or sixteenths to swing in 4/8. Some styles of music enter the performer's brain more easily in a certain notation, according to what we are used to. The composer can choose to ignore these conventions, but he may be putting up a barrier to easy interpretation of his music. Christopher (An interesting exception to the jazz swing convention: the tune All Blues, which for some odd reason is usually notated in 6/8 with swing 16ths, rather than the more conventional 6/4 with swung 8ths (like two bars of jazz waltz). Nutty.) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
On 27 Mar 2008 at 5:54, dhbailey wrote: 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? Well, sure, but not necessarily a sufficient difference for the listener to determine which meter is used in the notation. 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? Red herring, again. 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. :-) Indeed, we do. And I disagree quite vigorously. In fact, I'd say that the more competent the musicians, the greater the difference! -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
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? Come on, now, put yourself in an audience and write the meters down that you hear, and I'll be that your movements in 2 will be correct half the time and wrong half the time, assuming you've never seen the printed music before. What's the performing difference when dividing the beat in half, if using a half-note pulse and playing quarter notes or using a quarter-note pulse and playing 8th notes? A beat divided in half is a beat divided in half. Isn't it? -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
On Mar 26, 2008, at 6:39 AM, 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? Come on, now, put yourself in an audience and write the meters down that you hear, and I'll be that your movements in 2 will be correct half the time and wrong half the time, assuming you've never seen the printed music before. What's the performing difference when dividing the beat in half, if using a half-note pulse and playing quarter notes or using a quarter-note pulse and playing 8th notes? A beat divided in half is a beat divided in half. Isn't it? I know what he means, if I could jump in here. The listener might not make a distinction, but the performer reading it might react differently. In a previous post (I don't know if it made it to the board yet!) I had made a comparison using jazz, where it is easy to get eighth notes to swing in 4/4, but hard to get quarter notes to swing in 4/2 or sixteenths to swing in 4/8. Some styles of music enter the performer's brain more easily in a certain notation, according to what we are used to. The composer can choose to ignore these conventions, but he may be putting up a barrier to easy interpretation of his music. Christopher (An interesting exception to the jazz swing convention: the tune All Blues, which for some odd reason is usually notated in 6/8 with swing 16ths, rather than the more conventional 6/4 with swung 8ths (like two bars of jazz waltz). Nutty.) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
At 3/25/2008 12:20 AM, 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 THEY PLAY 2/4. Why? Or should I say how? That comment makes absolutely no sense to me. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
I hate to argue with David, but as a performer I know that playing something in 2/4 and in 2/2 definitely feels different. I'm not sure I have enough brain cells to work out why, or what it is that I do differently, but there is a difference. Sorry. Lawrence lawrenceyates.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
Phil Daley / 08.3.26 / 7:46 AM wrote: Why? Or should I say how? That comment makes absolutely no sense to me. It does make sense to me as well as it did to Christopher. I think the key here is style as in culture. Christopher Smith / 08.3.26 / 7:38 AM wrote: (An interesting exception to the jazz swing convention: the tune All Blues, which for some odd reason is usually notated in 6/8 with swing 16ths, rather than the more conventional 6/4 with swung 8ths (like two bars of jazz waltz). Nutty.) Well, I must disagree on this, tho. Unless the style is jazz waltz, you don't swing 3/4 as 1, 2, 3. You swing on the downbeat only. I can't stand when unknown drummer swing on 1, 2, 3 on my compositions because I don't write jazz waltz. In the same context, you want to swing in 2 beats on All Blues, so 6/8 is much more logical than 6/4 to me. I hope I am making a sense here. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
Christopher Smith wrote: [snip] (An interesting exception to the jazz swing convention: the tune All Blues, which for some odd reason is usually notated in 6/8 with swing 16ths, rather than the more conventional 6/4 with swung 8ths (like two bars of jazz waltz). Nutty.) But demonstrating that people can swing in meters other than 4/4. :-) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
On Mar 26, 2008, at 9:40 AM, dhbailey wrote: Christopher Smith wrote: [snip] (An interesting exception to the jazz swing convention: the tune All Blues, which for some odd reason is usually notated in 6/8 with swing 16ths, rather than the more conventional 6/4 with swung 8ths (like two bars of jazz waltz). Nutty.) But demonstrating that people can swing in meters other than 4/4. :-) Oh, I never said they COULDN'T, I just said you are putting up a barrier to the easiest communication if you want swung anything-but- eighths. I'm not that absolute. I would rather my musicians spend the saved CPU cycles on playing musically and making contact with the moment. Besides which, hardly anyone actually READS All Blues except for the first time. They know it after that. It's not that hard a tune. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
On Mar 26, 2008, at 9:05 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote: Phil Daley / 08.3.26 / 7:46 AM wrote: Why? Or should I say how? That comment makes absolutely no sense to me. It does make sense to me as well as it did to Christopher. I think the key here is style as in culture. Christopher Smith / 08.3.26 / 7:38 AM wrote: (An interesting exception to the jazz swing convention: the tune All Blues, which for some odd reason is usually notated in 6/8 with swing 16ths, rather than the more conventional 6/4 with swung 8ths (like two bars of jazz waltz). Nutty.) Well, I must disagree on this, tho. Unless the style is jazz waltz, you don't swing 3/4 as 1, 2, 3. You swing on the downbeat only. I can't stand when unknown drummer swing on 1, 2, 3 on my compositions because I don't write jazz waltz. In the same context, you want to swing in 2 beats on All Blues, so 6/8 is much more logical than 6/4 to me. I hope I am making a sense here. I think there are a lot of different ways to swing a jazz waltz, and a straight 3 (or 6, if you are thinking 2 bars at a time, like All Blues) is certainly one of them. My point was more along the lines of the subdivision, being that if All Blues is notated in 6/8, then the bass player is walking even 8ths and everyone else is swinging the 16ths. THAT is the unusual thing about the notation of that tune. It is completely out of character of the notation of almost every other jazz tune. And actually, now that I think about it, I am wrong about All Blues being unique. Mingus' Better Get It In Your Soul, recorded first in 1959, roughly the same time as All Blues, was described by him as being in 6/8 AND as a jazz waltz, though Andrew Homzy re-notated it in the more conventional 6/4 in his More Than A Fakebook. And THAT tune certainly changes feels, though not meter, during each performance I have heard on recording (I have about three recordings done spanning 20 years or so). Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
On Mar 26, 2008, at 4:38 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: I know what he means, if I could jump in here. The listener might not make a distinction, but the performer reading it might react differently. In a previous post (I don't know if it made it to the board yet!) I had made a comparison using jazz, where it is easy to get eighth notes to swing in 4/4, but hard to get quarter notes to swing in 4/2 or Dear Christopher, Sometime around 1960, Jim Hall wrote a piece for jazz players and string quartet that was notated in half notes where we would have expected quarters. It took us all of a minute or two to get used to it. There is an existing recording (George Shuller has it), and I defy anyone to hear the notation anomaly. Those things can put a temporary hitch in the performer's brain, but aural conventions do (and should) prevail. Joe Schwantner writes gorgeous music that I find difficult to read (my limitation - not the notation's) because he makes a point of choosing small note values; things a jazz musician would expect in quarters and eighths turn up in sixteenths and 32nds. I don't believe it makes a bit of difference to those who are used to the convention. It still sounds something like an orchestration of Bill Evans' most sophisticated and adventurous playing. As I said in an earlier email I tried to post (but it didn't come through, for some reason), nothing significant changed when France changed 500 francs to 5 francs. sixteenths to swing in 4/8. Some styles of music enter the performer's brain more easily in a certain notation, according to what we are used to. The composer can choose to ignore these conventions, but he may be putting up a barrier to easy interpretation of his music. I agree with this. Schwantner says he wants that barrier, though I can't, for the life of me, understand why. It does make his music look like complicated contemporary music, even if it sounds more accessible than much of that stuff. Maybe he has something there. He has certainly had professional success in the contemporary classical community by making his music notation agree with its conventions. (An interesting exception to the jazz swing convention: the tune All Blues, which for some odd reason is usually notated in 6/8 with swing 16ths, rather than the more conventional 6/4 with swung 8ths (like two bars of jazz waltz). Nutty.) And now, to contradict myself, my arrangement of this piece is written in 6/4, because I'd never seen it notated, and that seemed right to me. Go figure. Chuck ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
At 12:20 AM -0400 3/25/08, 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. I've got to back David up on this. In baroque chamber music we run into meters like 3/2 and 3/8 fairly often. My students deal pretty well with 3/8 (and even with inserted bars of 3/4 intended to make a hemiola VERY obvious, once we figured it out), but cut time in 3 throws many of them. Yeah, they're students and not professionals, and *I* don't have trouble with those meters, but they've been playing quarter note based music their entire musical lives. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
Cut time in 3? Is that the Zeffiro Torna meter? ajr At 12:20 AM -0400 3/25/08, 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. I've got to back David up on this. In baroque chamber music we run into meters like 3/2 and 3/8 fairly often. My students deal pretty well with 3/8 (and even with inserted bars of 3/4 intended to make a hemiola VERY obvious, once we figured it out), but cut time in 3 throws many of them. Yeah, they're students and not professionals, and *I* don't have trouble with those meters, but they've been playing quarter note based music their entire musical lives. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ 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
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
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! Come on, now, put yourself in an audience and write the meters down that you hear, and I'll be that your movements in 2 will be correct half the time and wrong half the time, assuming you've never seen the printed music before. Red herring. What's the performing difference when dividing the beat in half, if using a half-note pulse and playing quarter notes or using a quarter-note pulse and playing 8th notes? A beat divided in half is a beat divided in half. Isn't it? Because musicians respond differently the notation. They play 2/4 differently than they play 2/2 (unless they are insensitive clods, of course). Darcy gave some examples of exactly this from jazz with regard to swing on various subdivisions. The same holds true for other periods of music. I deal with this issue all the time with editions of Renaissance music that helpfully reduce the note values, and, frankly, once you're accustomed to the original note values (or, rather, in most cases, half the original note values), it's *harder* to play it in the modern note values. I may not be able to say whether a player is reading 2/4 or 2/2, but I'll be there will be a difference between how that same player performs the same music notated in the two different meters. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
On 26 Mar 2008 at 7:46, Phil Daley wrote: At 3/25/2008 12:20 AM, 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 THEY PLAY 2/4. Why? Or should I say how? That comment makes absolutely no sense to me. Haven't you worked with music that is in the wrong meter? And run onto the problems it causes in getting it performed properly? I see this all the time in the music I play, where modern editions often halve (and quarter) the original note values. It's harder to play for anyone who is comfortable in the style. Christopher gave the example from jazz (sorry I earlier said it was Darcy), and it's completely consistent with everything I know about the subject. Mozart began a draft of a movement of one of his string quartets in cut time. He then scratched it out and started over in 2/4. While the music had the same thematic material, it ended up with a different bass line, and a completely different musical texture than what was implied in the original. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
On 26 Mar 2008 at 8:18, Chuck Israels wrote: Joe Schwantner writes gorgeous music that I find difficult to read (my limitation - not the notation's) because he makes a point of choosing small note values; It seems to me that this statement of yours show that you agree with my point. Remember, I wasn't claiming that two meters *can't* be played identically, just that they likely will *not* be if there is a clear stylistic convention if which the piece is a part. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
And I'm *still* not sure I grok what's going on in your Ferneyhough example. Let me try again: You've got two notes of equal length in the 2/10 bar -- never mind what to call them. Each note gets one beat. The tempo indication says e=68. Does the tempo indication mean *these* two notes in the first bar are played at 68 BPM? Yes And the next bar -- my understanding is that the three notes in this bar are all 4/5ths as long as the notes in the preceding measure, right? So is the tempo for this bar is 54.4 BPM? Or does the e=68 in the *first* bar mean the eighth notes in the *second* bar are all 68 BPM -- and therefore the two notes in the *first* bar are 85 BPM? The former (you mean 5/4th?), in performance terms one should feel an elongation of the pulse by a specific ratio rather than concerning oneself with a particular calculation for a metronome marking. This is particularly important for being able to make sense of passages where there may be a long gradual rall. or accel. across several bars, including such changes in the pulse. So what is the test to determine whether you can, in fact, hear an interval or a rhythm in your head? Whether you can write it down? That can't be it -- lots of singers can't accurately transcribe the intervals they sing. Art Blakey could have played you (accurately!) rhythms he'd have found impossible to notate. Cheers, - Darcy But is a 'test' what we really want or what is needed? That's getting a little distracted from the point at hand, the music itself, and trivialising it into some kind of game. Owain ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
HI Hiro, Going to samba school in Rio, studying with Brazilian musicians, etc -- these things obviously make a big difference as to how the music sounds. But respectfully -- reading Desifinado written in 2/4 versus 4/4, not so much. If someone isn't familiar with the authentic bossa groove, handing them a chart in 2/4 isn't magically going to make them sound more convincing. (At least, not in my experience.) Similarly -- since *you* know what a true Brazillian bossa sounds, I expect you don't suddenly lose all of that knowledge when presented with a 4/4 lead sheet that says Bossa at the top (even if it's not notated the way you'd like). Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 24 Mar 2008, at 11:42 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote: Darcy James Argue / 08.3.23 / 6:36 PM wrote: Notational convenience, nothing more. The Brazillians wrote their bossa novas in 2/4, but all those sixteenth note syncopations were hard for American jazz musicians to read, so we renotated them into cut time. Doesn't make any difference to how it sounds, though. Sorry, I can't let this one go. American jazz musicians staring with Stan Getz converted bossa into 4/4. Not cut time. You must be thinking of samba, instead. Anyway, when jazz musician plays Brazilian music in 4/4, this means that musician is feeling on 2 and 4, it's like stabbing my back. I can't stand it. Jazz schools teaches bossa groove as jazz bossa, not the real one. Even samba with cut time, Brazilian music dance on beat 2, not 1. If anyone watch Brazilians dance, he/she will never be able to feel their music in 4. I played in Rio twice. The musicians I played over there took me to samba school and/or choro every night, and people dance until 4 am. People who come out for music every night doesn't need to work next morning! Anyway, the point is, as a musician who has been playing with various native Brazilians last 18 years, I totally believe that Brazilian music will sound differently when played by non natives if they are not written in sixteen note syncopations. Notation is very phycological. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ 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
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
Darcy James Argue / 08.3.25 / 0:44 AM wrote: But respectfully -- reading Desifinado written in 2/4 versus 4/4, not so much. If someone isn't familiar with the authentic bossa groove, handing them a chart in 2/4 isn't magically going to make them sound more convincing. (At least, not in my experience.) I would think there will be much less chance that someone start tapping in 2 and 4 if it were written in 2/4 :-) Similarly -- since *you* know what a true Brazillian bossa sounds, I expect you don't suddenly lose all of that knowledge when presented with a 4/4 lead sheet that says Bossa at the top (even if it's not notated the way you'd like). Hm, maybe I am a sensitive type? :-) I certainly won't groove (as in picturing the hot and humid Ipanema beach) if they are not written in 16th-8th-16th pattern. Notation is very phycological to me. Maybe just me, tho. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
A-NO-NE Music wrote: Darcy James Argue / 08.3.25 / 0:44 AM wrote: But respectfully -- reading Desifinado written in 2/4 versus 4/4, not so much. If someone isn't familiar with the authentic bossa groove, handing them a chart in 2/4 isn't magically going to make them sound more convincing. (At least, not in my experience.) I would think there will be much less chance that someone start tapping in 2 and 4 if it were written in 2/4 :-) No, but they sure as heck can tap on the and of 1 and the and of 2! ;-) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
dhbailey / 08.3.25 / 3:40 PM wrote: No, but they sure as heck can tap on the and of 1 and the and of 2! ;-) This is getting fun! OK, let me ask you this. How many times you screamed when a singer started to count off with 1 and 3? You won't be able to start playing if swing tune wasn't counted off on 2 and 4. For the same deal, you can't start playing Brazilian song if it were not counted off 1 and 2, and no way if Reggae wasn't counted off with 1 and 3. To tell you the truth, I didn't know you can't count 2 and 4 in Reggae until I was invited to perform with their native musicians in Kingston. Heck, Skank comping is played on 2 and 4. I thought you count along with them :-( -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:11 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote: Hm, maybe I am a sensitive type? :-) I certainly won't groove (as in picturing the hot and humid Ipanema beach) if they are not written in 16th-8th-16th pattern. Notation is very phycological to me. Maybe just me, tho. I think notation is psychological, too. How many jazz musicians do you know who can swing the quarter notes in 4/2, or (maybe less vital) the sixteenths in 4/8? Our sense of jazz phrasing is so tied to the quarter note that there is no telling WHAT you may end up with in those other time signatures. So I can completely understand someone tying their sense of bossa to 2/4 (even though someone else who is North American might tie it to 4/4.) Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
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. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
On 23 Mar 2008, at 5:55 PM, Owain Sutton wrote: That'd be no deal, anyway - they're not 'quaint', just historically-informed :p So historically-informed, in fact, that you insist on calling the note *without* a hook a crotchet. Even the French, from whence you stole the word, get this one right -- croche = eighth note. In seriousness, perhaps the desire to refer to 'tenth notes' is causing some of the difficulty here. Look on it as two bars with a quaver pulse, the first being in 2/10, the second in 3/8. There's no need for the first to be heard as anything other than quaver=c.68, so yes, it isn't that all that different in some ways from metric modulation. (Why notate anything as 2/2, if it's likely to be heard as 2/4?) Notational convenience, nothing more. The Brazillians wrote their bossa novas in 2/4, but all those sixteenth note syncopations were hard for American jazz musicians to read, so we renotated them into cut time. Doesn't make any difference to how it sounds, though. And I'm *still* not sure I grok what's going on in your Ferneyhough example. Let me try again: You've got two notes of equal length in the 2/10 bar -- never mind what to call them. Each note gets one beat. The tempo indication says e=68. Does the tempo indication mean *these* two notes in the first bar are played at 68 BPM? And the next bar -- my understanding is that the three notes in this bar are all 4/5ths as long as the notes in the preceding measure, right? So is the tempo for this bar is 54.4 BPM? Or does the e=68 in the *first* bar mean the eighth notes in the *second* bar are all 68 BPM -- and therefore the two notes in the *first* bar are 85 BPM? On the other hand, some of his approach seems very much to me like that of Xenakis, of putting in things which may or may not be achieved by current performers, but (a) are something to strive towards, and (b) may prove less of a challenge to future generations of players, as other aspects of the music take a place in our general knowledge and understanding. Yes -- I get that, and I approve that message. If not the music itself. If you can't clap it, then you *can't* hear the rhythms in your head. - it's the other way around. I can hear any rhythm I can clap, but I can't clap all the rhythms I can hear in my head, any more than I can sing all the notes I can hear. Some would argue that if you can't sing it, you don't really hear it, either. So what is the test to determine whether you can, in fact, hear an interval or a rhythm in your head? Whether you can write it down? That can't be it -- lots of singers can't accurately transcribe the intervals they sing. Art Blakey could have played you (accurately!) rhythms he'd have found impossible to notate. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
Darcy James Argue / 08.3.23 / 6:36 PM wrote: Notational convenience, nothing more. The Brazillians wrote their bossa novas in 2/4, but all those sixteenth note syncopations were hard for American jazz musicians to read, so we renotated them into cut time. Doesn't make any difference to how it sounds, though. Sorry, I can't let this one go. American jazz musicians staring with Stan Getz converted bossa into 4/4. Not cut time. You must be thinking of samba, instead. Anyway, when jazz musician plays Brazilian music in 4/4, this means that musician is feeling on 2 and 4, it's like stabbing my back. I can't stand it. Jazz schools teaches bossa groove as jazz bossa, not the real one. Even samba with cut time, Brazilian music dance on beat 2, not 1. If anyone watch Brazilians dance, he/she will never be able to feel their music in 4. I played in Rio twice. The musicians I played over there took me to samba school and/or choro every night, and people dance until 4 am. People who come out for music every night doesn't need to work next morning! Anyway, the point is, as a musician who has been playing with various native Brazilians last 18 years, I totally believe that Brazilian music will sound differently when played by non natives if they are not written in sixteen note syncopations. Notation is very phycological. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
Darcy That'd be no deal, anyway - they're not 'quaint', just historically-informed :p I suppose if we added Americans (and Canadians!) getting that horrid word 'quaint' out of their lexicon into the mix, we might be on to something... In seriousness, perhaps the desire to refer to 'tenth notes' is causing some of the difficulty here. Look on it as two bars with a quaver pulse, the first being in 2/10, the second in 3/8. There's no need for the first to be heard as anything other than quaver=c.68, so yes, it isn't that all that different in some ways from metric modulation. (Why notate anything as 2/2, if it's likely to be heard as 2/4?) The main advantage of these metres is in determining relationships *directly* between the *pulse* of one bar and the next, not between note values. Indeed the notes don't have to be written yet! And as I mentioned before, if a whole bar is then going to be placed inside a 10:7 tuplet for example, far better to use this system than try to do anything with metric modulation. (Outlook has screwed up all the indentation, so I'll respond to everything here) Regarding scores massively overloaded with notational affectations, stuff that he knows damn well will never make it into the performance, but includes as a purely intellectual conceit...I can understand this to a certain extent, but there's also a very dry sense of humour at work which throws a spanner in the works at times. If you can take a look at Time Motion Study No. 2, then do, to see instructions which unquestionably go way over the boundary into ridiculousness. On the other hand, some of his approach seems very much to me like that of Xenakis, of putting in things which may or may not be achieved by current performers, but (a) are something to strive towards, and (b) may prove less of a challenge to future generations of players, as other aspects of the music take a place in our general knowledge and understanding. To illustrate that last concept, I like to mention quarter-tones and quarter-tone notation - something common enough now to barely receive mention of any kind, compared to scores from a few decades ago which had prefaces which spelt out in detail what the various symbols indicate. (Not to suggest that Ferneyhough invented quartertones, just using them as an example!) Any player can be called upon to perform them with reasonable accuracy, rather than it being some kind of specialism. Rhythmic and metrical complexities are gradually accomodated in the same way. If you can't clap it, then you *can't* hear the rhythms in your head. - it's the other way around. I can hear any rhythm I can clap, but I can't clap all the rhythms I can hear in my head, any more than I can sing all the notes I can hear. It's possible for performers to create rhythms with instruments that are not possible with the human body alone. Can you clap the rhythm of the last movement of the Barber violin concerto?! Hi Owain, On 23 Mar 2008, at 10:36 AM, Owain Sutton wrote: I don't see why it's necessary for the mental countoff to be in x/4 or x/8. (He does generally make quavers his standard pulse rather than crotchets.) In the example I gave, the indication is that the pulse of the 2/10 bar is at quaver=68 indication. On arriving at the change to 3/8, the pulse slows by one-fifth. It's not necessary to be thinking about any incompleteness of tuplets, or about placing every bar against a continuous mental x/8 pulse. With a little practice these changes feel completely natural - less work than plenty of my pupils have needed when encountering 6/8 for the first time. First, I will make you a deal -- the US finally adopts the metric system and begins referring to soccer by its proper name, football. In exchange, the UK and everywhere else that uses the adorably quaint terms minim, crotchet, and hemidemisemiquaver finally gets on board with using the names for note durations that actually tell you how long the notes are. Deal? [I'm joking, of course. The US will never refer to the game where you kick the ball with your feet as football.] Anyway, back to Ferneyhough, I'm trying to make sure I understand you: Measure 1 is 2/10. The tempo is eighth note = 68. So, based on the idea that a tenth note = 1/10th of a whole note, the two tenth notes are the rhythmic equivalent of two eighth-note quintuplets. But the initial pulse is not tenth note = 68, it's eighth note = 68. Tenth notes move faster than eighth notes (125% faster, in fact). Measure 2 is in 3/8. The tempo has not changed. It's still eighth note = 68. But now we have normal eighth notes. What you are suggesting is that the countoff (mental or otherwise) would be in tenth notes, not eighth notes. But what this effectively means is that the 2/10 measure isn't being felt as a 2/10 measure at all, it's being felt as a 2/8 measure in a faster tempo (e =
