On 14 Jun 2003 at 6:05, Michael Edwards wrote: > [David W. Fenton:] > > >I don't see any point in distinguishing beat and pulse. If you're > >trying to perform a piece in a manner in which the pulse does not > >come out the same as the notated beat, either you're playing it wrong > >or it's one of those special cases where we don't interpret the > >notation literally. A good example is the Scherzo of the Beethoven > >Ninth, where Beethoven tells you to take it in one and group the > >measures of 3/4 into groups of 2 or 3. It could have been notated in > >9/8 and 6/8, but that would have brought in a whole host of incorrect > >genre associates that go along with those meters. > > In what way, David? By "genre associates", do you mean particular styles > or manner of performance that are considered to be implied by the actual choice > of time signature?
Yes. I mean that in Beethoven's time, 6/8 and 9/8 had conventional associations of tempo and style that were more lyrical, more pastoral, than the kind of feel that is needed in the Scherzo. So, even though what he was really notating was a change between 3 beats to the measure and 2 beats to the measure with a triple subdivision, it was actually clearer for him to notate it as he did. > What difference would it make to the way the Beethoven is played if it had > been written in 6/8, 9/8, or 12/8? (I would have thought it was more quadruple > in effect than duple.) (Or 6/4, etc., if you want to keep the crotchet notes.) ???? It would make a huge difference if people have conventional rhythmic and stylistic and tempo associations with particular meters. Use a meter in a way that clashes with those at your peril! You're not likely to get what you want. And in Beethoven's time, it was certainly not at all common to see a piece switch back and forth between 6/8 and 9/8 where the beat remained the same. There are plenty of finales of pieces that switch into 6/8 as contrast to a fast 2 (2/4 or 2/2), but I don't know of any music from that time that switches between 6/8 and 9/8 at any tempo. > Much of this movement is pretty clearly (as far as the ear hears it) in 4 > beats, except for the "tre battuti" section. . . . ??? Four? Ack! You're right, of course. I shouldn't have depended on memory! So, I should be saying 12/8 and 9/8. > . . . What would be the arguments > against using a triple or quadruple time signature? (That is, apart from the > tradition that says you don't notate scherzi in this manner.) Well, that's not something to sneeze at. And the idea of a 12/8 Scherzo, well, that's pretty scarey by itself, no? I think Beethoven's notation works pretty well, given the conventions he was working within. Today, we might not call it a Scherzo at all and just notate it in 12/8 and 9/8, and we'd probably get what we were looking for. In Beethoven's time, I doubt he would have. I'm not certain he got what he was looking for in his own notation, either. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
