Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[David W. Fenton]

On 27 Mar 2008 at 5:54, dhbailey wrote:

> David W. Fenton wrote:
> > On 26 Mar 2008 at 6:39, dhbailey wrote:
> > 
> >> David W. Fenton wrote:
> >>> On 23 Mar 2008 at 21:55, Owain Sutton wrote:
> >>>
>  (Why
>  notate anything as 2/2, if it's likely to be heard as 2/4?)
> >>> This kind of comment makes me crazy.
> >>>
> >>> You notate it as 2/2 because MUSICIANS PLAY IT DIFFERENTLY THAN THE 
> >>> PLAY 2/4.
> >>>
> >>> Certain styles of music make more sense in 2/2 than they would in 4/4 
> >>> or 2/4.
> >> You can really hear a difference in music performed in 2/4 rather than 
> >> 2/2? 
> > 
> > You know perfectly well that's not what I said!
> > 
> [snip]
> 
> But if it's performed differently as you claim, being a sound-based art 
> form, won't there be a difference in the sound?

Well, sure, but not necessarily a sufficient difference for the 
listener to determine which meter is used in the notation.

> By claiming that the musicians will perform music differently [your 
> word] if written in 2/2 from music written in 2/4, then there must be a 
> difference in the sound.  And if there's a difference in the sound, you 
> must be able to hear it.  If you can't hear a difference in the sound, 
> is there really a difference in the way the music is played?

Red herring, again.

> I agree that there is a different psychological aspect to various 
> movements in a multi-movement work, where one duple meter may be 2/4 and 
> another be 2/2, but I still maintain that given the same piece of music 
> with the same metronome indication for the unit of beat, there won't be 
> a difference among competent musicians between two versions of the same 
> piece, one in 2/2 and one in 2/4.
> 
> So we have to agree to disagree.  :-)

Indeed, we do. And I disagree quite vigorously. In fact, I'd say that 
the more competent the musicians, the greater the difference!

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[dhbailey]

David W. Fenton wrote:

On 26 Mar 2008 at 8:18, Chuck Israels wrote:

Joe Schwantner writes gorgeous music that I find difficult to read (my  
limitation - not the notation's) because he makes a point of choosing  
small note values;


It seems to me that this statement of yours show that you agree with 
my point.


Remember, I wasn't claiming that two meters *can't* be played 
identically, just that they likely will *not* be if there is a clear 
stylistic convention if which the piece is a part.




Now you've added that final condition, which you hadn't made before.  I 
agree with you on this point, given a clear stylistic convention.


But previously you were making blanket statements and then getting upset 
when we disagreed with your blanket statements.


With that condition, I agree with you.

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[dhbailey]

David W. Fenton wrote:

On 26 Mar 2008 at 6:39, dhbailey wrote:


David W. Fenton wrote:

On 23 Mar 2008 at 21:55, Owain Sutton wrote:


(Why
notate anything as 2/2, if it's likely to be heard as 2/4?)

This kind of comment makes me crazy.

You notate it as 2/2 because MUSICIANS PLAY IT DIFFERENTLY THAN THE 
PLAY 2/4.


Certain styles of music make more sense in 2/2 than they would in 4/4 
or 2/4.
You can really hear a difference in music performed in 2/4 rather than 
2/2? 


You know perfectly well that's not what I said!


[snip]

But if it's performed differently as you claim, being a sound-based art 
form, won't there be a difference in the sound?


By claiming that the musicians will perform music differently [your 
word] if written in 2/2 from music written in 2/4, then there must be a 
difference in the sound.  And if there's a difference in the sound, you 
must be able to hear it.  If you can't hear a difference in the sound, 
is there really a difference in the way the music is played?


I agree that there is a different psychological aspect to various 
movements in a multi-movement work, where one duple meter may be 2/4 and 
another be 2/2, but I still maintain that given the same piece of music 
with the same metronome indication for the unit of beat, there won't be 
a difference among competent musicians between two versions of the same 
piece, one in 2/2 and one in 2/4.


So we have to agree to disagree.  :-)

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[David W. Fenton]

On 26 Mar 2008 at 8:18, Chuck Israels wrote:

> Joe Schwantner writes gorgeous music that I find difficult to read (my  
> limitation - not the notation's) because he makes a point of choosing  
> small note values;

It seems to me that this statement of yours show that you agree with 
my point.

Remember, I wasn't claiming that two meters *can't* be played 
identically, just that they likely will *not* be if there is a clear 
stylistic convention if which the piece is a part.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

RE: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[David W. Fenton]

On 26 Mar 2008 at 7:46, Phil Daley wrote:

> At 3/25/2008 12:20 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
>  >On 23 Mar 2008 at 21:55, Owain Sutton wrote:
>  >
>  >> (Why notate anything as 2/2, if it's likely to be heard as 2/4?)
>  >
>  >This kind of comment makes me crazy.
>  >
>  >You notate it as 2/2 because MUSICIANS PLAY IT DIFFERENTLY THAN THEY PLAY 
> 2/4.
> 
> Why?  Or should I say how?
> 
> That comment makes absolutely no sense to me.

Haven't you worked with music that is in the "wrong" meter? And run 
onto the problems it causes in getting it performed properly?

I see this all the time in the music I play, where modern editions 
often halve (and quarter) the original note values. It's harder to 
play for anyone who is comfortable in the style.

Christopher gave the example from jazz (sorry I earlier said it was 
Darcy), and it's completely consistent with everything I know about 
the subject.

Mozart began a draft of a movement of one of his string quartets in 
cut time. He then scratched it out and started over in 2/4. While the 
music had the same thematic material, it ended up with a different 
bass line, and a completely different musical texture than what was 
implied in the original.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[David W. Fenton]

On 26 Mar 2008 at 6:39, dhbailey wrote:

> David W. Fenton wrote:
> > On 23 Mar 2008 at 21:55, Owain Sutton wrote:
> > 
> >> (Why
> >> notate anything as 2/2, if it's likely to be heard as 2/4?)
> > 
> > This kind of comment makes me crazy.
> > 
> > You notate it as 2/2 because MUSICIANS PLAY IT DIFFERENTLY THAN THE 
> > PLAY 2/4.
> > 
> > Certain styles of music make more sense in 2/2 than they would in 4/4 
> > or 2/4.
> 
> You can really hear a difference in music performed in 2/4 rather than 
> 2/2? 

You know perfectly well that's not what I said!

>  Come on, now, put yourself in an audience and write the meters 
> down that you hear, and I'll be that your movements in 2 will be correct 
> half the time and wrong half the time, assuming you've never seen the 
> printed music before.

Red herring.

> What's the performing difference when dividing the beat in half, if 
> using a half-note pulse and playing quarter notes or using a 
> quarter-note pulse and playing 8th notes?  A beat divided in half is a 
> beat divided in half. Isn't it?

Because musicians respond differently the notation. They play 2/4 
differently than they play 2/2 (unless they are insensitive clods, of 
course).

Darcy gave some examples of exactly this from jazz with regard to 
swing on various subdivisions. The same holds true for other periods 
of music. I deal with this issue all the time with editions of 
Renaissance music that "helpfully" reduce the note values, and, 
frankly, once you're accustomed to the original note values (or, 
rather, in most cases, half the original note values), it's *harder* 
to play it in the "modern" note values.

I may not be able to say whether a player is reading 2/4 or 2/2, but 
I'll be there will be a difference between how that same player 
performs the same music notated in the two different meters.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

RE: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[arabushk]

Cut time in 3? Is that the Zeffiro Torna meter?

ajr

> At 12:20 AM -0400 3/25/08, David W. Fenton wrote:
>>On 23 Mar 2008 at 21:55, Owain Sutton wrote:
>>
>>>  (Why
>>>  notate anything as 2/2, if it's likely to be heard as 2/4?)
>>
>>This kind of comment makes me crazy.
>>
>>You notate it as 2/2 because MUSICIANS PLAY IT DIFFERENTLY THAN THE
>>PLAY 2/4.
>>
>>Certain styles of music make more sense in 2/2 than they would in 4/4
>>or 2/4.
>
> I've got to back David up on this.  In baroque chamber music we run
> into meters like 3/2 and 3/8 fairly often.  My students deal pretty
> well with 3/8 (and even with inserted bars of 3/4 intended to make a
> hemiola VERY obvious, once we figured it out), but cut time in 3
> throws many of them.  Yeah, they're students and not professionals,
> and *I* don't have trouble with those meters, but they've been
> playing quarter note based music their entire musical lives.
>
> John
>
>
> --
> John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music
> Virginia Tech Department of Music
> College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences
> Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
> Vox (540) 231-8411  Fax (540) 231-5034
> (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
> http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
> ___
> 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

RE: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[John Howell]

At 12:20 AM -0400 3/25/08, David W. Fenton wrote:

On 23 Mar 2008 at 21:55, Owain Sutton wrote:


 (Why
 notate anything as 2/2, if it's likely to be heard as 2/4?)


This kind of comment makes me crazy.

You notate it as 2/2 because MUSICIANS PLAY IT DIFFERENTLY THAN THE
PLAY 2/4.

Certain styles of music make more sense in 2/2 than they would in 4/4
or 2/4.


I've got to back David up on this.  In baroque chamber music we run 
into meters like 3/2 and 3/8 fairly often.  My students deal pretty 
well with 3/8 (and even with inserted bars of 3/4 intended to make a 
hemiola VERY obvious, once we figured it out), but cut time in 3 
throws many of them.  Yeah, they're students and not professionals, 
and *I* don't have trouble with those meters, but they've been 
playing quarter note based music their entire musical lives.


John


--
John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music
Virginia Tech Department of Music
College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411  Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[Chuck Israels]

On Mar 26, 2008, at 4:38 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:



I know what he means, if I could jump in here. The listener might  
not make a distinction, but the performer reading it might react  
differently. In a previous post (I don't know if it made it to the  
board yet!) I had made a comparison using jazz, where it is easy to  
get eighth notes to swing in 4/4, but hard to get quarter notes to  
swing in 4/2 or


Dear Christopher,

Sometime around 1960, Jim Hall wrote a piece for jazz players and  
string quartet that was notated in half notes where we would have  
expected quarters.  It took us all of a minute or two to get used to  
it.  There is an existing recording (George Shuller has it), and I  
defy anyone to hear the notation anomaly.  Those things can put a  
temporary hitch in  the performer's brain, but aural conventions do  
(and should) prevail.


Joe Schwantner writes gorgeous music that I find difficult to read (my  
limitation - not the notation's) because he makes a point of choosing  
small note values; things a jazz musician would expect in quarters and  
eighths turn up in sixteenths and 32nds.  I don't believe it makes a  
bit of difference to those who are used to the convention.  It still  
sounds something like an orchestration of Bill Evans' most  
sophisticated and adventurous playing.


As I said in an earlier email I tried to post (but it didn't come  
through, for some reason), nothing significant changed when France  
changed 500 francs to 5 francs.


sixteenths to swing in 4/8. Some styles of music enter the  
performer's brain more easily in a certain notation, according to  
what we are used to. The composer can choose to ignore these  
conventions, but he may be putting up a barrier to easy  
interpretation of his music.


I agree with this.  Schwantner says he wants that barrier, though I  
can't, for the life of me, understand why.  It does make his music  
"look" like complicated "contemporary" music, even if it sounds more  
accessible than much of that stuff.  Maybe he has something there.  He  
has certainly had professional success in the contemporary "classical"  
community by making his music notation agree with its conventions.


(An interesting exception to the jazz swing convention: the tune All  
Blues, which for some odd reason is usually notated in 6/8 with  
swing 16ths, rather than the more conventional 6/4 with swung 8ths  
(like two bars of jazz waltz). Nutty.)


And now, to contradict myself, my arrangement of this piece is written  
in 6/4, because I'd never seen it notated, and that seemed right to  
me.  Go figure.


Chuck








___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale


Chuck Israels
230 North Garden Terrace
Bellingham, WA 98225-5836
phone (360) 671-3402
fax (360) 676-6055
www.chuckisraels.com

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[Christopher Smith]

On Mar 26, 2008, at 9:05 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:


Phil Daley / 08.3.26 / 7:46 AM wrote:

Why?  Or should I say how?

That comment makes absolutely no sense to me.


It does make sense to me as well as it did to Christopher.  I think  
the

key here is "style" as in "culture".

Christopher Smith / 08.3.26 / 7:38 AM wrote:

(An interesting exception to the jazz swing convention: the tune All
Blues, which for some odd reason is usually notated in 6/8 with swing
16ths, rather than the more conventional 6/4 with swung 8ths (like
two bars of jazz waltz). Nutty.)


Well, I must disagree on this, tho.  Unless the style is jazz  
waltz, you

don't swing 3/4 as 1, 2, 3.  You swing on the downbeat only.  I can't
stand when unknown drummer swing on 1, 2, 3 on my compositions  
because I

don't write jazz waltz.  In the same context, you want to swing in 2
beats on All Blues, so 6/8 is much more logical than 6/4 to me.  I  
hope

I am making a sense here.





I think there are a lot of different ways to swing a jazz waltz, and  
a straight 3 (or 6, if you are thinking 2 bars at a time, like All  
Blues) is certainly one of them.


My point was more along the lines of the subdivision, being that if  
All Blues is notated in 6/8, then the bass player is walking even  
8ths and everyone else is swinging the 16ths. THAT is the unusual  
thing about the notation of that tune. It is completely out of  
character of the notation of almost every other jazz tune.


And actually, now that I think about it, I am wrong about All Blues  
being unique. Mingus' "Better Get It In Your Soul", recorded first in  
1959, roughly the same time as All Blues, was described by him as  
being in 6/8 AND as a jazz waltz, though Andrew Homzy re-notated it  
in the more conventional 6/4 in his More Than A Fakebook. And THAT  
tune certainly changes feels, though not meter, during each  
performance I have heard on recording (I have about three recordings  
done spanning 20 years or so).


Christopher



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[Christopher Smith]

On Mar 26, 2008, at 9:40 AM, dhbailey wrote:


Christopher Smith wrote:
[snip]> (An interesting exception to the jazz swing convention: the  
tune All
Blues, which for some odd reason is usually notated in 6/8 with  
swing 16ths, rather than the more conventional 6/4 with swung 8ths  
(like two bars of jazz waltz). Nutty.)


But demonstrating that people can swing in meters other than 4/4.  :-)


Oh, I never said they COULDN'T, I just said you are putting up a  
barrier to the easiest communication if you want swung anything-but- 
eighths. I'm not that absolute. I would rather my musicians spend the  
saved CPU cycles on playing musically and making contact with the  
moment.


Besides which, hardly anyone actually READS All Blues except for the  
first time. They know it after that. It's not that hard a tune.


Christopher


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[dhbailey]

Christopher Smith wrote:
[snip]> (An interesting exception to the jazz swing convention: the tune 
All
Blues, which for some odd reason is usually notated in 6/8 with swing 
16ths, rather than the more conventional 6/4 with swung 8ths (like two 
bars of jazz waltz). Nutty.)


But demonstrating that people can swing in meters other than 4/4.  :-)

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[A-NO-NE Music]

Phil Daley / 08.3.26 / 7:46 AM wrote:
>Why?  Or should I say how?
>
>That comment makes absolutely no sense to me.

It does make sense to me as well as it did to Christopher.  I think the
key here is "style" as in "culture".

Christopher Smith / 08.3.26 / 7:38 AM wrote:
>(An interesting exception to the jazz swing convention: the tune All  
>Blues, which for some odd reason is usually notated in 6/8 with swing  
>16ths, rather than the more conventional 6/4 with swung 8ths (like  
>two bars of jazz waltz). Nutty.)

Well, I must disagree on this, tho.  Unless the style is jazz waltz, you
don't swing 3/4 as 1, 2, 3.  You swing on the downbeat only.  I can't
stand when unknown drummer swing on 1, 2, 3 on my compositions because I
don't write jazz waltz.  In the same context, you want to swing in 2
beats on All Blues, so 6/8 is much more logical than 6/4 to me.  I hope
I am making a sense here.

-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[YATESLAWRENCE]

I hate to argue with David, but as a performer I know that playing  something 
in 2/4 and in 2/2 definitely feels different.  I'm not sure I  have enough 
brain cells to work out why, or what it is that I do differently,  but there is 
a difference.
 
Sorry.
 
Lawrence
 
lawrenceyates.co.uk



   
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

RE: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[Phil Daley]

At 3/25/2008 12:20 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:

>On 23 Mar 2008 at 21:55, Owain Sutton wrote:
>
>> (Why notate anything as 2/2, if it's likely to be heard as 2/4?)
>
>This kind of comment makes me crazy.
>
>You notate it as 2/2 because MUSICIANS PLAY IT DIFFERENTLY THAN THEY PLAY 
2/4.


Why?  Or should I say how?

That comment makes absolutely no sense to me.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[Christopher Smith]

On Mar 26, 2008, at 6:39 AM, dhbailey wrote:


David W. Fenton wrote:

On 23 Mar 2008 at 21:55, Owain Sutton wrote:

(Why
notate anything as 2/2, if it's likely to be heard as 2/4?)

This kind of comment makes me crazy.
You notate it as 2/2 because MUSICIANS PLAY IT DIFFERENTLY THAN  
THE PLAY 2/4.
Certain styles of music make more sense in 2/2 than they would in  
4/4 or 2/4.


You can really hear a difference in music performed in 2/4 rather  
than 2/2?   Come on, now, put yourself in an audience and write the  
meters down that you hear, and I'll be that your movements in 2  
will be correct half the time and wrong half the time, assuming  
you've never seen the printed music before.


What's the performing difference when dividing the beat in half, if  
using a half-note pulse and playing quarter notes or using a  
quarter-note pulse and playing 8th notes?  A beat divided in half  
is a beat divided in half. Isn't it?


I know what he means, if I could jump in here. The listener might not  
make a distinction, but the performer reading it might react  
differently. In a previous post (I don't know if it made it to the  
board yet!) I had made a comparison using jazz, where it is easy to  
get eighth notes to swing in 4/4, but hard to get quarter notes to  
swing in 4/2 or sixteenths to swing in 4/8. Some styles of music  
enter the performer's brain more easily in a certain notation,  
according to what we are used to. The composer can choose to ignore  
these conventions, but he may be putting up a barrier to easy  
interpretation of his music.


Christopher

(An interesting exception to the jazz swing convention: the tune All  
Blues, which for some odd reason is usually notated in 6/8 with swing  
16ths, rather than the more conventional 6/4 with swung 8ths (like  
two bars of jazz waltz). Nutty.)



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[dhbailey]

David W. Fenton wrote:

On 23 Mar 2008 at 21:55, Owain Sutton wrote:


(Why
notate anything as 2/2, if it's likely to be heard as 2/4?)


This kind of comment makes me crazy.

You notate it as 2/2 because MUSICIANS PLAY IT DIFFERENTLY THAN THE 
PLAY 2/4.


Certain styles of music make more sense in 2/2 than they would in 4/4 
or 2/4.




You can really hear a difference in music performed in 2/4 rather than 
2/2?   Come on, now, put yourself in an audience and write the meters 
down that you hear, and I'll be that your movements in 2 will be correct 
half the time and wrong half the time, assuming you've never seen the 
printed music before.


What's the performing difference when dividing the beat in half, if 
using a half-note pulse and playing quarter notes or using a 
quarter-note pulse and playing 8th notes?  A beat divided in half is a 
beat divided in half. Isn't it?




--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

RE: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[David W. Fenton]

On 23 Mar 2008 at 21:55, Owain Sutton wrote:

> (Why
> notate anything as 2/2, if it's likely to be heard as 2/4?)

This kind of comment makes me crazy.

You notate it as 2/2 because MUSICIANS PLAY IT DIFFERENTLY THAN THE 
PLAY 2/4.

Certain styles of music make more sense in 2/2 than they would in 4/4 
or 2/4.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[Christopher Smith]

On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:11 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:


Hm, maybe I am a sensitive type?
:-)

I certainly won't groove (as in picturing the hot and humid Ipanema
beach) if they are not written in 16th-8th-16th pattern.  Notation is
very phycological to me.  Maybe just me, tho.



I think notation is psychological, too. How many jazz musicians do  
you know who can swing the quarter notes in 4/2, or (maybe less  
vital) the sixteenths in 4/8? Our sense of jazz phrasing is so tied  
to the quarter note that there is no telling WHAT you may end up with  
in those other time signatures. So I can completely understand  
someone tying their sense of bossa to 2/4 (even though someone else  
who is North American might tie it to 4/4.)


Christopher


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[A-NO-NE Music]

dhbailey / 08.3.25 / 3:40 PM wrote:

>No, but they sure as heck can tap on the "and" of 1 and the "and" of 2!  ;-)

This is getting fun!

OK, let me ask you this.  How many times you screamed when a singer
started to count off with 1 and 3?  You won't be able to start playing
if swing tune wasn't counted off on 2 and 4.

For the same deal, you can't start playing Brazilian song if it were not
counted off 1 and 2, and no way if Reggae wasn't counted off with 1 and
3.  To tell you the truth, I didn't know you can't count 2 and 4 in
Reggae until I was invited to perform with their native musicians in
Kingston.  Heck, Skank comping is played on 2 and 4.  I thought you
count along with them :-(

-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[dhbailey]

A-NO-NE Music wrote:

Darcy James Argue / 08.3.25 / 0:44 AM wrote:

But respectfully -- reading "Desifinado" written in 2/4 versus 4/4,  
not so much. If someone isn't familiar with the authentic bossa  
groove, handing them a chart in 2/4 isn't magically going to make them  
sound more convincing. (At least, not in my experience.)


I would think there will be much less chance that someone start tapping
in 2 and 4 if it were written in 2/4 :-)



No, but they sure as heck can tap on the "and" of 1 and the "and" of 2!  ;-)



--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[A-NO-NE Music]

Darcy James Argue / 08.3.25 / 0:44 AM wrote:

>But respectfully -- reading "Desifinado" written in 2/4 versus 4/4,  
>not so much. If someone isn't familiar with the authentic bossa  
>groove, handing them a chart in 2/4 isn't magically going to make them  
>sound more convincing. (At least, not in my experience.)

I would think there will be much less chance that someone start tapping
in 2 and 4 if it were written in 2/4 :-)

>Similarly -- since *you* know what a true Brazillian bossa sounds, I  
>expect you don't suddenly lose all of that knowledge when presented  
>with a 4/4 lead sheet that says "Bossa" at the top (even if it's not  
>notated the way you'd like).

Hm, maybe I am a sensitive type?
:-)

I certainly won't groove (as in picturing the hot and humid Ipanema
beach) if they are not written in 16th-8th-16th pattern.  Notation is
very phycological to me.  Maybe just me, tho.

-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[Darcy James Argue]

HI Hiro,

Going to samba school in Rio, studying with Brazilian musicians, etc  
-- these things obviously make a big difference as to how the music  
sounds.


But respectfully -- reading "Desifinado" written in 2/4 versus 4/4,  
not so much. If someone isn't familiar with the authentic bossa  
groove, handing them a chart in 2/4 isn't magically going to make them  
sound more convincing. (At least, not in my experience.)


Similarly -- since *you* know what a true Brazillian bossa sounds, I  
expect you don't suddenly lose all of that knowledge when presented  
with a 4/4 lead sheet that says "Bossa" at the top (even if it's not  
notated the way you'd like).


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY



On 24 Mar 2008, at 11:42 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:

Darcy James Argue / 08.3.23 / 6:36 PM wrote:


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.


Sorry, I can't let this one go.
American jazz musicians staring with Stan Getz converted bossa into
4/4.  Not cut time.  You must be thinking of samba, instead.  Anyway,
when jazz musician plays Brazilian music in 4/4, this means that
musician is feeling on 2 and 4, it's like stabbing my back.  I can't
stand it.  Jazz schools teaches bossa groove as jazz bossa, not the  
real
one.  Even samba with cut time, Brazilian music dance on beat 2, not  
1.

If anyone watch Brazilians dance, he/she will never be able to feel
their music in 4.  I played in Rio twice.  The musicians I played over
there took me to samba school and/or choro every night, and people  
dance

until 4 am.  People who come out for music every night doesn't need to
work next morning!

Anyway, the point is, as a musician who has been playing with various
native Brazilians last 18 years, I totally believe that Brazilian  
music

will sound differently when played by non natives if they are not
written in sixteen note syncopations.

Notation is very phycological.

--

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 



___
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

RE: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[Owain Sutton]

> 
> 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?

Yes

> 
> 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?
> 

The former (you mean 5/4th?), in performance terms one should feel an
elongation of the pulse by a specific ratio rather than concerning
oneself with a particular calculation for a metronome marking.  This is
particularly important for being able to make sense of passages where
there may be a long gradual rall. or accel. across several bars,
including such changes in the pulse.



> 
> 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
> 

But is a 'test' what we really want or what is needed?  That's getting a
little distracted from the point at hand, the music itself, and
trivialising it into some kind of game.

Owain


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[A-NO-NE Music]

Darcy James Argue / 08.3.23 / 6:36 PM wrote:

>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.

Sorry, I can't let this one go.
American jazz musicians staring with Stan Getz converted bossa into
4/4.  Not cut time.  You must be thinking of samba, instead.  Anyway,
when jazz musician plays Brazilian music in 4/4, this means that
musician is feeling on 2 and 4, it's like stabbing my back.  I can't
stand it.  Jazz schools teaches bossa groove as jazz bossa, not the real
one.  Even samba with cut time, Brazilian music dance on beat 2, not 1. 
If anyone watch Brazilians dance, he/she will never be able to feel
their music in 4.  I played in Rio twice.  The musicians I played over
there took me to samba school and/or choro every night, and people dance
until 4 am.  People who come out for music every night doesn't need to
work next morning!

Anyway, the point is, as a musician who has been playing with various
native Brazilians last 18 years, I totally believe that Brazilian music
will sound differently when played by non natives if they are not
written in sixteen note syncopations. 

Notation is very phycological.

-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[Darcy James Argue]

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

RE: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[Owain Sutton]

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/