> > Perhaps so; I don't know how much training in harmonics a > violinist gets compared to, say, a guitarist, whose scores > are littered with harmonics. In looking at your Britten > example, I can see which strings those harmonics might fall > on for greatest volume, if only because of knowing the > harmonic series pretty intimately for electronic work. But > there are so many harmonic combinations for a given result, > and I'm not sure what Britten was looking for, nor how > idiomatic it was intended to be. If I needed it, I'd grab > Zukofsky's great chart and use that (which I assume > violinists would know by heart, and not need me anyway). >
Sadly, many violinists have not nearly enough knowledge of harmonics. On the other hand, Britten's notation makes all this unnecessary, as he indicates exactly how it all works in straightforward (!) double-stops. (Cracking piece, by the way, worth having a listen to if you don't know it.) > But if a given string brand, instrument quality and performer > technique produces better volume of this essentially > colorless tone in a less traditional position, then that > would be the choice for the performer, not me. (The same with > electronics; I'd prefer to specify the parameters and result > rather than the knobs to turn and buttons to press.) > > Dennis > Decent argument. (Britten does also give an ossia for the last chord...) _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
