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
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
]
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 anything as 2/2, if it's likely
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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 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
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
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
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'
28 matches
Mail list logo
