Werner LEMBERG wrote >>>I have a hard time imagining a performer bringing this to life in a >>>manner justifying the complexity written into the score. >> >> Why? >> >> It seems you haven"t heard enough of today"s highly qualified and >> dedicated performers ... > > It's not about performing this notation. I'm sure this could be > *much* simpler notated, and nobody listening to it would hear a > difference. > > At least for ensemble music this makes a huge difference IMHO – the > simpler the score, the less rehearsal time you need, and the better > the performance is.
I would like to respectfully half-disagree with you. I say half because what you say is obviously true, regarding simplicity vs rehearsal time and accuracy. The part that I will actually argue is that today's music is many times harder than Stockhausen's Klavierstucke. And some of this music is music for, say, piano and percussion, or piano and drums etc., and with that one has to be exact. The thing is, they can be done that way today. If anything, these kinds of things usually are so much better for one's mental picture of rhythm rather than simply getting through a piece. One learns rhythm at a deeper level when they count 5/6 keeping the time from before rather than changing the time a-la-modulation and getting back. In the first case they superimpose one timing over another, polyrhythmic counting which is a great skill to acquire, while on the latter they just change the metronome for a bit and back again. Sometimes the notation implies a method that makes one a better rhythmicist, if such a term applies. The easiest thing probably would be to change back and fro, but that would not give much to the performer as a skill. My opinion always, nothing more. Thank you -S. -- Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Dev-f88644.html
