Darcy That'd be no deal, anyway - they're not 'quaint', just historically-informed :p I suppose if we added Americans (and Canadians!) getting that horrid word 'quaint' out of their lexicon into the mix, we might be on to something...
In seriousness, perhaps the desire to refer to 'tenth notes' is causing some of the difficulty here. Look on it as two bars with a quaver pulse, the first being in 2/10, the second in 3/8. There's no need for the first to be heard as anything other than quaver=c.68, so yes, it isn't that all that different in some ways from metric modulation. (Why notate anything as 2/2, if it's likely to be heard as 2/4?) The main advantage of these metres is in determining relationships *directly* between the *pulse* of one bar and the next, not between note values. Indeed the notes don't have to be written yet! And as I mentioned before, if a whole bar is then going to be placed inside a 10:7 tuplet for example, far better to use this system than try to do anything with metric modulation. (Outlook has screwed up all the indentation, so I'll respond to everything here) Regarding scores "massively overloaded with notational affectations, stuff that he knows damn well will never make it into the performance, but includes as a purely intellectual conceit"...I can understand this to a certain extent, but there's also a very dry sense of humour at work which throws a spanner in the works at times. If you can take a look at Time & Motion Study No. 2, then do, to see instructions which unquestionably go way over the boundary into ridiculousness. On the other hand, some of his approach seems very much to me like that of Xenakis, of putting in things which may or may not be achieved by current performers, but (a) are something to strive towards, and (b) may prove less of a challenge to future generations of players, as other aspects of the music take a place in our general knowledge and understanding. To illustrate that last concept, I like to mention quarter-tones and quarter-tone notation - something common enough now to barely receive mention of any kind, compared to scores from a few decades ago which had prefaces which spelt out in detail what the various symbols indicate. (Not to suggest that Ferneyhough invented quartertones, just using them as an example!) Any player can be called upon to perform them with reasonable accuracy, rather than it being some kind of specialism. Rhythmic and metrical complexities are gradually accomodated in the same way. "If you can't clap it, then you *can't* hear the rhythms in your head." - it's the other way around. I can hear any rhythm I can clap, but I can't clap all the rhythms I can hear in my head, any more than I can sing all the notes I can hear. It's possible for performers to create rhythms with instruments that are not possible with the human body alone. Can you clap the rhythm of the last movement of the Barber violin concerto?! > Hi Owain, > > On 23 Mar 2008, at 10:36 AM, Owain Sutton wrote: > > > > I don't see why it's necessary for the mental countoff to > be in x/4 or > > x/8. (He does generally make quavers his standard pulse rather than > > crotchets.) In the example I gave, the indication is that the pulse > > of > > the 2/10 bar is at quaver=68 indication. On arriving at > the change to > > 3/8, the pulse slows by one-fifth. It's not necessary to > be thinking > > about any incompleteness of tuplets, or about placing every bar > > against > > a continuous mental x/8 pulse. With a little practice these changes > > feel completely natural - less work than plenty of my pupils have > > needed > > when encountering 6/8 for the first time. > > First, I will make you a deal -- the US finally adopts the metric > system and begins referring to "soccer" by its proper name, > "football." In exchange, the UK and everywhere else that uses the > adorably quaint terms "minim," "crotchet," and "hemidemisemiquaver" > finally gets on board with using the names for note durations that > actually tell you how long the notes are. Deal? > > [I'm joking, of course. The US will never refer to the game > where you > kick the ball with your feet as "football."] > > Anyway, back to Ferneyhough, I'm trying to make sure I understand you: > > Measure 1 is 2/10. The tempo is eighth note = 68. So, based on the > idea that a "tenth note" = 1/10th of a whole note, the two "tenth > notes" are the rhythmic equivalent of two eighth-note > quintuplets. But > the initial pulse is not tenth note = 68, it's eighth note = > 68. Tenth > notes move faster than eighth notes (125% faster, in fact). > > Measure 2 is in 3/8. The tempo has not changed. It's still > eighth note > = 68. But now we have normal eighth notes. > > What you are suggesting is that the countoff (mental or otherwise) > would be in tenth notes, not eighth notes. But what this effectively > means is that the 2/10 measure isn't being felt as a 2/10 measure at > all, it's being felt as a 2/8 measure in a faster tempo (e = 85), > followed by an immediate metric modulation to a 3/8 measure at e=68. > > This is fine for notational purposes, I guess (although I personally > would be loath to write it that way). But it won't *feel* like a bar > of 2/10 to anyone, because there's no rhythmic point of reference. > Instead, it will feel like a metric modulation. > > On the other hand, if you are a rock band, chugging along in a heavy > 4/4 beat, and then you suddenly drop a 2/10 bar in at the end of > phrase -- i.e., extend a measure by 2 eighth note quintuplets -- > *that* is going to actually feel like 2/10. > > (People who think this is a ridiculous example should check out this > YouTube clip, sent to me by a commenter on my blog: > http://youtube.com/watch?v=wt9XlVqKYhA It's the band Soundgarden, who were very big in the 1990's. See if you can spot the measure of 5/12.) > I must make the point is that it's a mistake to assume that > Ferneyhough > has expectations of robotic accuracy - he has stated clearly that this > is not the case. (The first tempo of Etudes Transcendentales is > actually not 68 as I said, but 'ca.68'.) No, I get that. I just don't like it. His scores strike me as being massively overloaded with notational affectations, stuff that he knows damn well will never make it into the performance, but includes as a purely intellectual conceit. > Sure, he may not be able to clap the rhythms, but it's not his job > to do > so. Boy do I ever disagree with that. I would be embarrassed to put a piece of music in front of musicians if I couldn't at least clap or sing all of the rhythms reasonably accurately. If the composer can't be bothered to learn his own music, why should anyone else? > If he can hear the rhythms in his head, If you can't clap it, then you *can't* hear the rhythms in your head. Cheers, - Darcy ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
