As to your points. >new notation
Not really a con, since that's the whole point. >is not intuitive and needs to be explained, Maybe, but only once at most. > does not show conductor subdivisions That's easy enough to show in parts that aren't sustaining. If all the parts are sustaining, it's not an issue. I don't see a problem here. On the contrary, I think showing the subdivision in only the parts that are moving is clearer for the conductor. >-unique context, can't be extended It certainly can be extended, but it probably would be wise to do so before the base 5/4 case (hypothetically) were fully to be accepted as standard practice. New notation conventions don't have to happen (nor have they happened) all at once. I'd be curious to know how much time elapsed between the introduction of one augmentation dot vs. multiple. (My notation history training has receded too far into the past!) As I've said all along, ymmv. No one's going to force you to use it. I'd be open to other ideas for filling a 5/4 bar with a single note value, but so far I haven't seen one I prefer to this one. On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:52 PM, SN jef chippewa < shirl...@newmusicnotation.com> wrote: > > >No one ever explained it to me, and I got it right away. ymmv > > sure, but you intuited it, it wasn't a logical extension of the > notation. it isn't something one can "figure out", but can deduce, > that is what i meant. and i don't think either of us would accept > the idea that the norms of (this sort of) notation should be anything > but logical. > > > >Crumb only uses it to fill whole "bars" (though sometimes without > >barlines, as you see). > > > >>in your ex1 why is the end of the 1st measure in the upper piano not > >a dotted 8th? > > > >While not relevant to the question at hand, I would guess it is because he > >want to show a 3+2 feel. > > ah, but i think it is, because pno II is the only player that could > give a 3+2 feel, and that would more effectively be shown by > connecting the 8th beam in beats 4-5. he doesn'tnotate it that way, > and i really don't believe (based of course only on my reading of > this small excerpt and my memory of the pieces i have heard of his) > that he intends that. so the idea of using a single (compound) > symbol for duration is not used consistently. he doesn't use a > dotted 8th where one is clearly warranted (or at least certainly > justified) and then invents a new notation in a place where it is > perhaps not needed/warranted. > > > > >but a stemless quarter head with lv ties would do just as well. > > > >But then it might require rests, and the whole point of this > >notation is to show the duration. > > yeah, true in this case. > > > >If you carried this notation to its pedantic extreme, I suppose you > >could fill a 9/4 bar with a double whole dotted on the right and > >double-dotted on the left. But Crumb does not do that. He fills 9/4 > >bars conventionally with dotted whole tied to dotted half. It seems > >like this notation is reserved for filling 5-beat bars. > > exactly my point. if you are going to invent new notations it has to > be done consistently. inventing a new notation that can only be used > in one situation is common in new music, but crumb's notation is > *very* traditional, so i would still argue that tied notes is the way > to go. > > your proposal of course works: > 1) right dots augment by a value that is 1/2 the value of the main > note; each subsequent dot augments by a further 1/2 the previous dot > value > 2) left dots reduce by a value that is 1/4 the value of the main > note; each subsequent dot reduces by a further 1/2 the previous dot > value > > and i could write "this is not a typo" over something i notate but > the fact of me doing it doesn't make it the unquestionably cleverest > solution :-) > > the discrepancy of the first dot beside the notehead representing 1/2 > vs 1/4 is not explained anywhere. why is the left dot 1/4? just > because (george decided) it is. again, yeah we figured it out, but > it isn't logical or inherently intuitive. > > that said... as i say early on in probably all the seminars on > notation i have given: some aspects of notation make it inherently > contradictory but we need to reduce as much as possible within a > given context the redundancies and inconsistencies to help the > musician gain quicker and more informative access to the music. or > something to that effect. > > i am still completely unconvinced about this notation for 5/4, at > least in this context. i don't think so much more is gained by > inventing this new notation that makes a strong enough case for it to > replace tied values. > > PROS > - one duration, one notehead (indeed a strong argument) > - largely based on existing notation, with an alteration > > CONS > - new notation > - is not intuitive and needs to be explained, or the musician has to > deduce it > - does not show conductor subdivisions (a conductor will beat in 3+2 > or 2+3 and we don't see it here) > - is used in a unique context > - cannot be extended to similar "problems" (9/4) without involving > unfortunate convolutions (1 vs. 2 dots) > - creates more spacing issues on the left side (horizontal spacing is > a serious issue in new music notation; you found a solution, but > there is no need for a "solution" with tied notes) > > discussion on deck: what is wrong with his (piano) harmonic notation... ;-) > > -- > > neueweise -- fonts for new music (and traditional) notation > http://newmusicnotation.com/fonts.html > > shirling & neueweise | http://newmusicnotation.com > new music notation + arts management + translation > [FB] http://facebook.com/neueweise | [TW] http://twitter.com/neueweise > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > > To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: > finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu > _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
