Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
[snip]
Why would they have to do that? Counting is counting, isn't it? Doesn't make
sense to me.
True -- but suggesting that counting is counting assumes
that all musicians are able to think of the counting while
playing, which isn't true in my experience. I
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
On Tue, June 1, 2010 10:48 am, dhbailey wrote:
But to get to my statement which you quoted, I'm not sure
why it should bother you. It seems like a tautology that if
the performers don't understand the notation they won't
perform the music correctly.
I'm talking
At 5:01 PM -0400 6/1/10, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 1 Jun 2010 at 14:59, John Howell wrote:
So this is quite a different problem from Dennis's, in which he wants
barlines but differently in each part.
Actually, I don't think it is.
And the more I think about it, the more I agree.
[snip]
The other issue is one of correction. If the beats are clearly delineated with
beams/ties, when you make a sight-reading mistake, it is easy to get back on
track on the next downbeat. If you have something like (in 4/4):
3 eighths beamed - dotted quarter - quarter tied over barline to... |
At 12:51 AM -0400 6/2/10, David W. Fenton wrote:
I feel no compunction to
avoid converting idiomatic material from the one medium into
different material that is idiomatically equivalent in the new
medium.
I guess that seems to be contradictory, since I said as little
intervention as possible
On 2 Jun 2010 at 11:42, John Howell wrote:
I find the
independent meters much more confusing than letting the notes
themselves define their inner subdivisions.
Perhaps this was an infelicitous choice of words, but to me, this is
missing the point -- it's not subdivisions that are at issue,
At 7:46 AM -0400 6/2/10, dhbailey wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
I'm talking about a willing ignorance. Karkoschka's book came out 40 years
ago, and it was encyclopedic -- a summing up of what was already in use.
Dennis: You may have a valid complaint, but at least aim it where it
At 11:53 AM -0400 6/2/10, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Notating that figure in a more conventional way, so that the
beams/ties show the 4/4 but the accents indicate the 3+3+3+4+3 makes
it a lot more likely that the music will be read correctly in the
first place, and helps prevent any mistakes
David Bailey wrote:
Also out of print is Gardner Read's work, Sourcebook of
Proposed Music Notation Reforms from 1985.
I beg to differ... I have two copies in stock ri ght now! :)
Along with many other Gardner Read titles.
Nick
Nick Carter, PhD
Owner, npc Imaging
www.npcimaging.com
Tel: (707)
On 2 Jun 2010 at 7:14, dhbailey wrote:
Obscure those rhythms by beaming to the
phrasing and the number of people who can't count grows.
Note that in repertory to which its applicable, I have argued that
beaming used for phrasing should never obscure the underlying beats.
(except, of course,
n...@npcimaging.com wrote:
David Bailey wrote:
Also out of print is Gardner Read's work, Sourcebook of
Proposed Music Notation Reforms from 1985.
Â
I beg to differ... I have two copies in stock ri ght now! :)
Along with many other Gardner Read titles.
Nick
I see that the edition you have
On Wed, June 2, 2010 7:46 am, dhbailey wrote:
Unfortunately, the book is currently unavailable in either
English or German, which makes learning these things a bit
more difficult these days. There aren't even any used
copies available through Amazon
Abebooks has it for $475, with bargain
12 matches
Mail list logo
