I wrote: > > And I guess that that's the whole point of this discussion -- where > > does deviation from traditional standards begin to detract from ease
> > of reading, when does it become downright misleading, and when is it > > just plain incorrect? David Fenton replied: > What bothers me about this is that your formulation has no room for > considerations of whether or not the "non-standard" notation is > musically appropriate. The above paragraph doesn't represent any "formulation!" It just tries to sum up this whole discussion. > It [the "non-standard" notation] might better > represent the musical content than any "standard" > notational presentation, and I think that's key. And that's just what I said, elsewhere in my previous note. What I do not like, however, is such things (I almost wrote "gimmicks") as writing tonal music with no key signature and with a lot of accidentals, when using a key signature would make it far easier for the performer. Or writing a piece in 24/4 time when six measures of 4/4 would do just as well and be easier for the performer. Or writing measures of 3/8, 3/8, 1/4 (to imply accents at the start of each measure) when a simple 4/4 measure with three accents would be far easier to read. I have the feeling that a lot of composers think that to sound new and different, their music must also LOOK new and different. Sometimes there is a need for departure from traditional notation and engraving standards. But sometimes composers write in strange ways just to avoid having an old-fashioned key signature or time signature, because they think it will make the printed music LOOK old-fashioned. I've performed very modern complex works that were almost entirely traditional in their notation. One example that comes to mind is the "Lamentations of Jeremiah" by Peter Michaelides, for two wind ensembles, two choirs, speaking choir and several vocal soloists. It's a serial work, with very complex rhythms and phrasings. It has no key signature, as is appropriate for an atonal work. But the entire piece (as I recall, or at least most of it) is in 4/4, at M.M.=60. All the unusual rhythms are written traditionally within this framework, using conventional notes, dots and ties. I am not opposed to using non-standard notation IF it is the only way -- or truly the best way -- to convey the composer's wishes to the performer [and this is important:] in terms the performer will most easily understand. I am, on the other hand, opposed to novel notation for the sake of novelty, particularly when traditional notation would convey the message to the performer as well or better than novel notation. Jim O'Briant Bayside Music Press Gilroy, CA 95020 http://www.baysidemusicpress.com _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
