I think it is a riot! More power to them!
Minister of Music, Edwardsville (IN) United Methodist Church
Retired Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra, 1971-2016
On Dec 8, 2016 7:42 PM, "SN jef chippewa"
> RESPECT! finale
I’ve actually written ‘this is not a typo’ on parts…
> On 9 Dec 2016, at 00:42, SN jef chippewa
> RESPECT! finale knows its priorities. so development $ was spent on
> this -- and on writing a blog entry to explain the (ahem) 5 difficult
RESPECT! finale knows its priorities. so development $ was spent on
this -- and on writing a blog entry to explain the (ahem) 5 difficult
steps to get a beer mug to show over your music!!! -- and we are
still only back up to the speed of F2012 on the mac side?!?!?!?!
are you fucking
On 12/8/2016 8:10 AM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
[snip]> Though I've seen it done, alternating notations of 4/4 and 3/2
> the quarter-note pulse the same never made sense to me. I would be expecting
> the conductor to switch to /2 pulses.
That's how I conduct that sort of
I think a composer should be able to do whatever they like. But it's not a
convention that is outliving its usefulness, it is rather a useful distinction
that is being contracted.
I can happily conduct 6 beats in 3/2 to keep the pulse the same and I've never
met anyone who would suddenly
I often use verse numbers to keep text separate for different sections of a
piece. For example, in a song cycle the text for each song would be in a
I have discovered that "score merger" merges all the text for different
files into the same verse numbers, which means verse one
[I’ve trimmed the previous discussion]
I just conducted a piece for concert band by Samuel R. Hazo called “Arabesque”
where there is a single measure of 6/4 indicated to be conducted 2+2+2 in a
context of 4/4. I think this was the right decision, as 4/4 + 2/4 would have
implied a stronger
On Thu, December 8, 2016 6:00 am, David H. Bailey wrote:
> But putting
> aside those of us on this list, how would a composer indicate in a
> printed score, without using accent marks which would likely produce
> more emphasis than desired, that with a 6/4 meter the emphasis should be
> 1, 3, 5 so
An interesting point, which shows more than anything else how imprecise music
notation is in conveying a composer's intentions.
Accents could be interpreted with too strong an emphasis on the 1, 3 and 5,
phrase marks could lead to a greater than wanted disconnect between 2-3, 4-5,
Agree with David entirely.
The distinction is a useful and longstanding one.
I don't see what is gained by blurring it.
> On 8 Dec 2016, at 11:00, David H. Bailey wrote:
>> On 12/8/2016 12:36 AM, Giovanni Andreani wrote:
>> I agree with Patrick, the
they would read the finale list archives, no? :P
>how would a composer indicate in a printed score, without using
>accent marks which would likely produce more emphasis than desired,
>that with a 6/4 meter the emphasis should be 1, 3, 5 so that a
>performer far removed from this discussion or
On 12/8/2016 12:36 AM, Giovanni Andreani wrote:
> I agree with Patrick, the denominator suggests the pulse's value.
If that's true, then why is 6/8 so often played as 2/dotted-quarter
instead of clearly indicating each 8th note? That seems to be the
majority of the time.
And the original
I see both and if you have time to explain you could use either.
But.. if I was writing for a sight read or studio session (or any classical
players) I would write it the way it would be conducted.
If I wrote 6/4 and then conducted three accents in the bar, it would lead to
Mail list logo