2007/11/8, Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I'm a professional piano player by myself, and I've played most of the > pieces you are mentioning.
I've read this whole thread since it has started, because I find the main issue very interesting. It really, reallly would be a shame if it had to go flaming. My two cents here: You guys are talking about different things. Each musical big period has its own writing traditions (not to mention each composer's taste). In 18th/19th century music, 128th and 256th notes weren't rare indeed; it doesn't mean people are still writing this way today. Let me take another example: the accidentals. as you may know, 19th century composers liked flats much more than sharps; in contemporary music, statistics show that you are much more likely to find sharp than flats. Does it mean flats and double flats are evil? Of course not. Habits just change. One thing is very interesting though: when it comes to finding 256th notes, you always refer to *solo* pieces (piano sonatas, violon pieces, etc.). Why is that? It is because when writing orchestral music, composers always tend to make things more "basic" for musicians, so that everybody can play together whithout being disturbed by complex notations. In every orchestration class (at least the ones I attended to), students are always taught to prefer simple, basic meters to more complex time signatures: I sometimes had to write orchestral versions of Beethoven sonatas movements, and I outrageously replaced 3/8 with 3/4 so that orchestral parts could get more understandable by musicians (besides, when attending to an orchestration class, you know that if what you're writing is ever played, it will be by pupils). In a same way, I once orchestrated a C-flat Chopin piece... in a B natural key! It's a shame, ok, I'll never pretend otherwise, but just try to make a bunch of (unexperienced) violinists play a C-flat scale, and then will talk about it again :) Like you Werner, I'm a pianist, and as a soloist I'm used to read and play 256th notes. But as a composer, I always tend -- like you probably do -- to aim for the most simple writing, and my dream is to write music that is both interesting and easy to read. Besides, Beethoven's harmonical structures and language look more familiar to us than contemporary languages, so putting *very complicated* rhythms in *very complex* chords, scales and harmonies, would just be adding complexity to complexity. I'm very respectful with Mark's Ferneyhough example, but I can't say this is the kind of music I want to write, especially in ensemble music. As a soloist instrumentist, I'd be thrilled to play it, but I know it would take me weeks to understand and learn the rhythmic structure. I just can't afford to require musicians who would play *my* music to take such time and efforts. So, writing 256th notes is absolutely not evil. I deeply regret that Thomas has taken it this way. But nevertheless, such rhythms are not always enjoyed by musicians, and for a humble young composer, writing like Beethoven would not only be a total anachronism, but also a bad habit. Sory for having been this long. Best Regards, Valentin _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
