On 23 Mar 2008, at 5:55 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:
That'd be no deal, anyway - they're not 'quaint', just
historically-informed :p
So historically-informed, in fact, that you insist on calling the note
*without* a hook a "crotchet." Even the French, from whence you stole
the word, get this one right -- "croche" = eighth note.
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?)
Notational convenience, nothing more. The Brazillians wrote their
bossa novas in 2/4, but all those sixteenth note syncopations were
hard for American jazz musicians to read, so we renotated them into
cut time. Doesn't make any difference to how it sounds, though.
And I'm *still* not sure I grok what's going on in your Ferneyhough
example. Let me try again:
You've got two notes of equal length in the 2/10 bar -- never mind
what to call them. Each note gets one beat. The tempo indication says
e=68. Does the tempo indication mean *these* two notes in the first
bar are played at 68 BPM?
And the next bar -- my understanding is that the three notes in this
bar are all 4/5ths as long as the notes in the preceding measure,
right? So is the tempo for this bar is 54.4 BPM? Or does the e=68 in
the *first* bar mean the eighth notes in the *second* bar are all 68
BPM -- and therefore the two notes in the *first* bar are 85 BPM?
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.
Yes -- I get that, and I approve that message. If not the music itself.
"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.
Some would argue that if you can't sing it, you don't really hear it,
either.
So what is the test to determine whether you can, in fact, hear an
interval or a rhythm in your head? Whether you can write it down? That
can't be it -- lots of singers can't accurately transcribe the
intervals they sing. Art Blakey could have played you (accurately!)
rhythms he'd have found impossible to notate.
Cheers,
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
