At 5:54 AM -0400 3/27/08, dhbailey wrote:
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 t
At 1:32 AM -0400 3/28/08, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 27 Mar 2008 at 13:19, John Howell wrote:
The problem (not a problem for them, but a
problem for us in learning to interpret late 13th
century Franconian notation) is that Franco used
the same note shape to indicate both a perfect
longa (w
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Smith
> Sent: 25 March 2008 17:22
> To: finale@shsu.edu
> Subject: Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale
>
>
>
> Though I wonder how F himself accompl
On 27 Mar 2008 at 13:19, John Howell wrote:
> The problem (not a problem for them, but a
> problem for us in learning to interpret late 13th
> century Franconian notation) is that Franco used
> the same note shape to indicate both a perfect
> longa (worth 3 breves) and an imperfect longa
> (w
At 10:32 AM -0400 3/27/08, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 27 Mar 2008 at 6:21, dhbailey wrote:
>
I knew immediately what John meant when he said "cut time in 3" as would
many of the musicians I work with.
I knew what he meant, too, but it's not a concept that those of us
who perform music notate
At 8:18 AM +0100 3/27/08, dc wrote:
John Howell écrit:
Not in the Malipiero edition, if my memory is
anywhere close to accurate. But 3/2 is fairly
common in later Baroque music where it's an
actual time signature and not a proportion.
You often mention this shift from proportions to
time s
On 27 Mar 2008 at 6:21, dhbailey wrote:
> David W. Fenton wrote:
> > On 27 Mar 2008 at 0:12, John Howell wrote:
> >
> >> At 5:18 PM -0500 3/26/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> Cut time in 3? Is that the Zeffiro Torna meter?
> >> Not in the Malipiero edition, if my memory is anywhere close to
>
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 c
]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. März 2008 12:39
An: finale@shsu.edu
Betreff: Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough
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 anyt
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 27 Mar 2008 at 0:12, John Howell wrote:
At 5:18 PM -0500 3/26/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cut time in 3? Is that the Zeffiro Torna meter?
Not in the Malipiero edition, if my memory is anywhere close to
accurate. But 3/2 is fairly common in later Baroque music where
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 agre
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 DIFFERENTL
On 27 Mar 2008 at 0:12, John Howell wrote:
> At 5:18 PM -0500 3/26/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Cut time in 3? Is that the Zeffiro Torna meter?
>
> Not in the Malipiero edition, if my memory is anywhere close to
> accurate. But 3/2 is fairly common in later Baroque music where it's
> an act
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.
R
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 beca
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 DI
At 5:18 PM -0500 3/26/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cut time in 3? Is that the Zeffiro Torna meter?
Not in the Malipiero edition, if my memory is anywhere close to
accurate. But 3/2 is fairly common in later Baroque music where it's
an actual time signature and not a proportion.
John
--
J
John Howell wrote:
Quite correct, except for one thing. The term (French) is
"violoncello."
I knew better. My story, and I'm sticking to it, is that the "i" is
right next to the "o".
ns
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.
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
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
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
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
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 b
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 tha
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 t
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
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 s
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/
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 i
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
.
Dalvin Boone
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale
On Mar 25, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Hi Noel,
Good solution!
Also, I think the
saying a musician -- or the audience for that matter -- can't
distinguish a triplet (even if "partial") from the related
non-triplet 8th value at the start of the piece is to seriously
doubt the capacity of your musicians and audience.
Well, sorry, Jef, but until and unless an audible pulse
On 24 Mar 2008, at 3:17 PM, Ray Horton wrote:
Wow, Darcy, the classical players with which you sometimes work
sound like the jazz players with which I sometimes work!
Of course there are jazz players with bad time. But all the other jazz
musicians know that these players have bad time, and h
On 23 Mar 2008, at 10:31 PM, shirling & neueweise wrote:
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
On Mar 25, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Hi Noel,
Good solution!
Also, I think the "Trance" rhythm reads a little better when it's
*actually* notated in 12/8, without the incomplete triplets. You
can see it written out here:
http://secretsociety.typepad.com/darcy_james_argu
At 6:03 AM -0600 3/25/08, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
I did not find any old references to "tuplet" either, but every
dictionary I consulted had definitions for "quintuplet",
"sextuplet", and "octuplet", including the oldest one I own, dating
1920's. Personally, I've always considered "tuplet" to
Christopher Smith wrote:
Okay, so non-Finale-users have the opportunity to look [up the word
"tuplet"] and find out what it means. But I would REALLY like to know
where this word came from. I had never heard it before using Finale,
and I still only ever see it used by Finale users (the Wikipedi
Hey Chuck,
Indeed -- didn't want to let the conductors off the hook either!
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 25 Mar 2008, at 6:35 PM, Chuck Israels wrote:
On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:12 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
But, of course, it *is* possible for a large orchestral string
On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:12 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
But, of course, it *is* possible for a large orchestral string
section to articulate with clarity -- I've heard it. The reason it
doesn't happen more often is that most professional orchestral
string players have poor time and a lack o
Hi Noel,
Good solution!
Also, I think the "Trance" rhythm reads a little better when it's
*actually* notated in 12/8, without the incomplete triplets. You can
see it written out here:
http://secretsociety.typepad.com/darcy_james_argues_secret/2008/03/what-is-a-compo.html
Cheers,
- Darcy
On 24 Mar 2008, at 3:17 PM, Ray Horton wrote:
Wow, Darcy, the classical players with which you sometimes work
sound like the jazz players with which I sometimes work!
Of course there are jazz players with bad time. But all the other jazz
musicians know that these players have bad time, and h
On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:03 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 25 Mar 2008 at 8:19, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Mar 25, 2008, at 12:14 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
It's notational abominations that bother me.
Granted, it's an old notation system being twisted to do things it
wasn't designed for, so
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
On 25 Mar 2008 at 8:19, Christopher Smith wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2008, at 12:14 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > $On 23 Mar 2008 at 20:40, shirling & neueweise wrote:
> >
> >> guys, really, get over it. this music is playable
> >
> > It's notational abominations that bother me.
> >
> > Granted, it'
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 c
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
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
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
g
On Mar 25, 2008, at 12:14 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
$On 23 Mar 2008 at 20:40, shirling & neueweise wrote:
guys, really, get over it. this music is playable
It's notational abominations that bother me.
Granted, it's an old notation system being twisted to do things it
wasn't designed for,
On Mar 24, 2008, at 9:34 AM, dhbailey wrote:
Do a websearch on "tuplets +music" and you'll get lots of hits
which use that term. It's even found a place in the "wiktionary"
so it's hardly just a term for Finale users anymore. When I use
the term with people who have never used Finale, t
On 25-Mar-08, at 2:20 AM, Owain Sutton wrote:
What struck me immediately is Owain's use of the word "tuplets" for
"non-binary division of the beat" when only a Finale user has ever
heard or would understand such a term. An excellent example
of a word
springing into being because it was neede
>
> What struck me immediately is Owain's use of the word "tuplets" for
> "non-binary division of the beat" when only a Finale user has ever
> heard or would understand such a term. An excellent example
> of a word
> springing into being because it was needed, kind of like a
> shoemaking
Hey Jef,
Thanks for your comments. I find myself agreeing with much of it,
especially this:
some of it really does have to be played "as written" for the piece
to work at all, but there are other times where, to conclude
arditti's point, rhythmic detail definitely has to be mastered, but
Wow, Darcy, the classical players with which you sometimes work sound
like the jazz players with which I sometimes work!
Seriously - what kind of players are you talking about? Are these
middle-of-the-pack free lancers in NYC, or what? Here, where we can have
two hundred applicants for a sin
>
> 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 *the
Christopher Smith wrote:
On Mar 23, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Hi Owain,
On 23 Mar 2008, at 10:36 AM, Owain Sutton wrote:
incompleteness of tuplets,
using the names for note durations that actually tell you how long
the notes are.
What struck me immediately is Owain
$On 23 Mar 2008 at 20:40, shirling & neueweise wrote:
> guys, really, get over it. this music is playable
It's notational abominations that bother me.
Granted, it's an old notation system being twisted to do things it
wasn't designed for, so that's bound to result in nasty things.
But then wh
On 23 Mar 2008 at 20:40, shirling & neueweise wrote:
> noone faults
> richter for playing insane amounts of wrong notes
Er, yes, many people do -- I do, for one.
--
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/
___
On 24 Mar 2008 at 12:16, shirling & neueweise wrote:
> late mozart string quartet
Your argument would be helped if you didn't repeatedly use this
vastly ignorant turn of phrase.
--
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/
___
On 24 Mar 2008 at 3:31, shirling & neueweise wrote:
> even as far back as chopin we have examples of tuplet values which do
> not necessarily have a clear-cut, unquestionable relationship to the
> metre (22:6/8, for example, or 5-lets in cadences that REALLY do NOT
> function like quintuplets i
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 h
On Mar 24, 2008, at 9:18 AM, shirling & neueweise wrote:
What struck me immediately is Owain's use of the word "tuplets"
for "non-binary division of the beat" when only a Finale user has
ever heard or would understand such a term.
oops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuplet
Okay, s
> there is a whole generation of musicians who have grown up
> with the possibility of performing his music, and learning it from
> people who had to "figure it out'" themselves.
>
I could not agree more.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
ht
Regarding my suggestion of the solution to the puzzle Darcy posed by
changing key signatures, it occurs to me that to make this to work, at
the point the key signatures change, the tempo also needs to change so
that the dotted quarter of the 12/8 bars equals the quarter of the 4/4
bars.
ns
__
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 on
In the origin post for a moment, wherein Darcy asked about "another
way", which question I have not seen an answer to:
I set out to recreate the brief example from Michael Gordon's "Trance"
(great piece, BTW) in Finale -- with correct playback -- and quickly
hit a brick wall.
The rhythm is (
What struck me immediately is Owain's use of the word "tuplets" for
"non-binary division of the beat" when only a Finale user has ever
heard or would understand such a term.
oops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuplet
___
Finale mailing list
Fin
On Mar 23, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Hi Owain,
On 23 Mar 2008, at 10:36 AM, Owain Sutton wrote:
incompleteness of tuplets,
using the names for note durations that actually tell you how long
the notes are.
What struck me immediately is Owain's use of the word "tuple
As for the rest of your post, I wish you wouldn't give me credit for
saying things I'm not saying.
darcy, my apologies if that came across as a personal attack, it
wasn't menat that way, it was an attack on the argument itself,
because it is more often than not the only thing that people can
On 23 Mar 2008, at 3:40 PM, shirling & neueweise wrote:
Performances of Ferneyhough (at least the ones I've heard) tend to
be approximate at best. I don't fault the performers -- I very much
doubt the composer could clap his own rhythms with any accuracy
either.
as i understand it he has
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.
so we should go through all the reperto
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'
Performances of Ferneyhough (at least the ones I've heard) tend to
be approximate at best. I don't fault the performers -- I very much
doubt the composer could clap his own rhythms with any accuracy
either.
as i understand it he has actually performed in one of his recent
works, and i think
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 qu
> Hi Owain,
>
> The point I was trying to make is that unlike standard time
> signatures, a tuplet-base time signature like 5/6 can't stand on its
> own -- it only makes sense relative to a non-tuplet-base time sig.
> Even if the first measure is 5/6, your mental countoff still
> has to b
OTECTED] On Behalf Of Darcy James Argue
Sent: 22 March 2008 22:48
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale
Hi all,
I ended up blogging about this -- my post includes more extensive
instructions and visual examples. I also include audio of the
bassline
in
f Of Darcy James Argue
> Sent: 22 March 2008 22:48
> To: finale@shsu.edu
> Subject: Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I ended up blogging about this -- my post includes more extensive
> instructions and visual examples. I also include audio of
Hi all,
I ended up blogging about this -- my post includes more extensive
instructions and visual examples. I also include audio of the bassline
in question: two versions, with two different clicks:
http://secretsociety.typepad.com/darcy_james_argues_secret/2008/03/till-this-bitte.html
Che
On 22 Mar 2008, at 9:10 AM, shirling & neueweise wrote:
For the curious:
Finally, hide all the triplets and render the partial triplets
graphically.
in this example you would only need it on m2-3, then m1 notated
normally.
Well, mm.2-4, actually, with m.1 and m.5 notated normally, but y
For the curious:
Finally, hide all the triplets and render the partial triplets graphically.
in this example you would only need it on m2-3, then m1 notated normally.
great solution, but i don't like the fact that you can't actually use
finale's tuplets at all in your explanation. so i woul
Wow, Darcy.
My hat is off to you for spending the time to figure out how to do that.
Your ability to get this program to sit up and spit nickels never
fails to amaze me, as it always highlights hidden depths and abilities
of the program which counter some of the frustrations that the more
mu
Oh, that IS ingenious! I had just finished reading the post (the
comments reminded me of a discussion we had here on the List a couple
of years back) and was about to try it out myself (deadline done and
sent off, rest of the long weekend free.)
I wonder what Dennis B-K would have said?
Ni
Hey all,
Never mind, I figured it out.
For the curious:
First enter the figure as regular quarter notes and eighth notes.
Next, for the bars with partial tuplets, create a "4 quarters in the
space of 6 quarters" tuplet over the entire bar. This turns all
quarter notes in the measures into
Inspired by this post by Kyle Gann:
http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2008/03/dont_blame_me_it_was_henry_cow.html
I set out to recreate the brief example from Michael Gordon's
"Trance" (great piece, BTW) in Finale -- with correct playback -- and
quickly hit a brick wall.
The rhythm is
84 matches
Mail list logo
