On Oct 31, 2012, at 10:38 PM, SN jef chippewa <shirl...@newmusicnotation.com> wrote:
> i'm not concerned so much with sight-reading. > i'm concerned with the music being clearly shown > to the musician. Any composer working in the United States writing for orchestra needs to be absolutely, acutely aware of what types of notation are most easily read at sight, because you're never going to get everyone to check out the parts in advance. (If even 25% of the players do, it's a minor miracle!) And of course, you're also never also going to get anything even remotely resembling adequate rehearsal time. So if the same idea can be easily communicated using traditional notation -- in this case, metrical beaming plus accents -- it's counterproductive and self-destructive to notate it some other way. (Especially if doing it some other way causes the players to curse you under their breath as they cross out your beaming, which they will definitely do if you use nonmetrical beaming.) > n the case they mention (difficulty > in ensemble practice), i don't see what the > problem should be The problem is that the beaming needs to correspond to the conductor's beat pattern in predictable and repeatable ways. The more complex and/or syncopated and/or multi-layered the rhythms, the more important this becomes. Cheers, - DJA ----- WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org Cheers, - DJA ----- WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
