Music Velocity and Microdynamics

[mcdiddy1]

o you want to have your cake and eat it? On the one hand, time signatures don't mean all that much because composers basically stuck to 4/4 to make money? But on the other, they were regularly willing to sacrifice money to fit the "intent of the music" (despite your insistence it would not change how it sounds)? Are the composers cheap whores or not? You need to make up your mind and exercise consistency. If they didn't see significance in time signatures, why did these musical prostitutes often select alternatives that could have be notated in a simpler 4/4 and give up their income?

Music is too vast to be limited to one reason. Of course there are many reasons for why a time signature is used. Like I say I am simply mention one of the many reasons is based on audience appeal. Similiar to what you said about Schuburt, the music may be better served changing it to a different time signature. Music regulary travels back and forth between different divisions and groupings so a time signature may be selected because it best fits all of this movement not because it is the only way to feel the pulse. Just because some time signatures are interchangable does not mean all of time signatures are not important to understand and use.

Cheap whores ? Wow thats harsh. I have no idea where you got that idea from. Thats a really negative connetation on what composers did. Composers get paid for their work, right? Isn't it possible they would have to make changes to their work based on what the audience wanted. Beethoven writing in the classical period definetly reflected the taste of public just like very composer before and after him. I does not make them cheap whores just influenced by their surrounding like everyone eles. It doesn't make them "musical prostitues".

why did these musical prostitutes often select alternatives that could have be notated in a simpler 4/4 and give up their income?

This is basicly the same question you asked repeatedly over and over despite me answering it. Deciding you do not like the answer and choosing to ask it over and over does not disprove what I said. If you do not like what I said then what is your theory on why they "depart from 4/4" ? Communicates something different is not a clear answer because nobody knows what that means.

Mary had a little lamb was NOT written in 12/4. If a genius composer wrote it that way, then it might be significant. Seeing as none did, it is not of any interest.

But the point is the fact it can be written in that way and not change the sound of the piece unless the performer interprate it differently. Lets get specific then. How about Beethoven's Piano Sonata No.8 in C minor9 ( The Pathetique) second movement. It is originally in 2/4. Instead of 2/4 play it in 4/4. Is it possible to play it in 4/4 or is it impossible?

Whereas most piano pieces are "beginner friendly"? Like Beethoven sonatas? The more you push this train of speculation, the more ludicrous it becomes. The only reason they would use an unusual time signature is IF IT SERVED A PURPOSE! What this was about was the fact that distinguishing between 2 and 4 clearly DOES serve a musical purpose- or they would not have done it! I have no interest in speculation about why they don't use something like 3.5/7 as a time signature. There's a simple and most likely answer- because they didn't see any musical purpose.

The early Beethoven sonatas are comparativly not difficult. An intermediate student should have no problem with his early G major sonata. Well you call it purpose and I call it musical intent. Its the same thing. All I am doing is being more direct and discover what the purpose is. Sometimes if your Bartok you music does not sound like anything eles in Western music so you use truely strange time signature. In come cases like Beethoven sonatas choosing between 2/4 and 4/4 could both be reasonably used but the composer (or editor) choose the one that is clear  for the performer to read and does not compromise the integrity of the music. I never said it always works but in some pieces it does.

"

No ,because 6/8 is divisible by two but it will not sound the same as something in 2/4 ."

Musically it is not divisible into root units of 2, only mathematically. The root unit is a group of 3. If you want to be pedantic, your own comment was this:

"You can listen to a piece of music and determine whether it is duple( groups of two) or triple ( groups of three) but you should not be able to tell if it is in 2/4 or 4/4 because pieces in duple can be written with either meter signature." 

What you were clearly suggesting was that anything which has a root unit of 2s (unlike 6/8 which is rooted in 3s) is the same thing and can be written in any way that involves a root of 2s. You are wrong. If these thing didn't matter, composers would not take the trouble to differentiate between 2/4 and 4/4.

I did not suggest anything of the sort. I never used the word "root" or such stuff. I assumed you would know 2/4 and 4/4 are in duple meter and the fact they are divisible by two is coincidental not because of the fact. I am not talking mathmatics I am only speaking in a musical sense. Why would it always be trouble? If you decide in your head the music is duple or triple it narrows down your choices. The fact is they could have choose time signatures we never seen before but they didn't. I don't think there are is a simple answer that fits all.   

"If you play this simple piece in 4/4 and then switch it to 2/4 this piece is going to sound different?


YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Of course it would make it sound different! Did not read a single one of the examples I gave? I'd likely be inclined to slur it in pairs, if I saw such a notation. Had the composer felt a need to notate what would otherwise have appeared to be a long line in such short chunks (despite the fact that nothing about the natural structure of the melody suggests such small subdivisions) I would naturally presume that he was making a point. I would make it more fragmented and make a bigger deal of articulations- compared to if it were presented in 4/4. No composer with an ounce of sense would present it in units as small as 2/4- unless he was trying to imply something other than the simple onward flow that 4/4 suggests. The second movement of Beethoven's op. 110 would be a different piece altogether, had he written 4 beat bars. It would be a lot smoother. His notation tells me that he doesn't want it to be overly fluid.

Thats my main point.

you said :

"I'd likely be inclined to slur it in pairs, if I saw such a notation. would naturally presume that he was making a point. I would make it more fragmented and make a bigger deal of articulations"

Thats my point. Notice how all of these were decisions you made, not the composer. That is an interpretation and we all do it. I might do the slur it in pairs but I might not make it more fragment like you would do. That is the right of a well educated musician to make musical choices in good taste. But the time signature does not dictate these choices. Our back ground and our experiences would.

If a beginner who has few piano lessons plays it with out the slurs or articulating things, the student is not wrong because there are no slurs or articulation indicated there. At its root, the notes and rhythms played are the same but the other aspects are at the will of the performer even on such an elementary piece as Mary had a little lamb.

 If you played it, exactly as it was written on the page and the beginner student played exactly as it was written on the page then the sound would be exactly the same. When you begin to apply your past experiences of pieces in this time signature to the music it will be better but most importantly different. This is preciely in line with what I have been saying all along and it does not matter if it is Mary had a little lamb or Beethoven because we always do it on some level.

this topic is so complex... I DON'T GET IT. Isn't playing music that somebody else wrote supposed to be kind of simple? Didn't the composer think it important to tell us how to play the music with correct phrase marks and accents and marks like that?

It's just with a language that you learn, you are taught by your teacher or textbook or study partner that this word is pronounced this way, this word is pronounced that way, etc... and you MEMORIZE it and it's the same no matter how many times you repeat it in a un-changing context.

But MUSIC is interpreted every single time we make/play it - differently every time. In that way (to me) music doesn't seem like a language, it seems like a river that changes. Languages are more logical, used to communicate, while music is used to express emotions, feeling, ideas, but it doesn't stay the same, so how could it be so logical as a language?

Yes music can get very complex. You would think it would be simple but I think that is only on a surface level. Unfortunate what is on the page does not give us all the information on how to play other wise everyone would sound the same. But I think that is what makes music an interesting subject to me because you can always learn something new about it and you can have different interpretations on the same piece.

I don't think music is a language either because in language words have specific meanings. In music a note can have different meanings in different contexts and different meanings to different people.

You should not feel like your missing the obvious because I think if it was obvious then we wouldn't have a discussion. We are discussing things that are less obvious in the music (meter).

[nyiregyhazi]

.

[nyiregyhazi]

"If you do not like what I said then what is your theory on why they "depart from 4/4" ?"

I forgot to mention that it conveys something different to the performer about how to perform the music, which is different to what would have happened had they notated in a 4/4 equivalent? Actually, I seem to recall that this has been something of a running theme, to put it mildly. Read my point about Mary had a little lamb in 2/4.


"Communicates something different is not a clear answer because nobody knows what that means."

No- YOU have repeatedly shown that you do not know what it means. You have claimed there is no difference because YOU are not aware of one. That does not mean that nobody knows what these things imply. And neither does it mean that those who do not consciously know could not be affected by the visual impression of the notation. Visual cues are extremely powerful- which is exactly why beginners almost always stop at bar-lines. While that particular trait is negative, many other visual cues are part of what the composer wanted to convey in his selection of notation. That's why Chopin marked all his stems in the same direction for long melodies, rather than have the fragmented effect of changing direction constantly. We cannot help but be influenced- however much you might like to exist in denial of that.

"But the point is the fact it can be written in that way and not change the sound of the piece unless the performer interprate it differently. Lets get specific then. How about Beethoven's Piano Sonata No.8 in C minor9 ( The Pathetique) second movement. It is originally in 2/4. Instead of 2/4 play it in 4/4. Is it possible to play it in 4/4 or is it impossible?"

Yet another strawman? It's not about "possible". Indeed the very fact it was possible to have written it in a more normal 4/4 (yet was written in the less normal 2/4) certainly conveys something. What I have said this is about is that I would most certainly inflect the melody differently. While I do not accentuate the first beat of the 2nd bar heavily (or without blending it into the phrase), I would almost certainly do much more of an unaccent, were it in 4/4.


"The early Beethoven sonatas are comparativly not difficult. An intermediate student should have no problem with his early G major sonata."

Great. So Beethoven started life as a *** and moved on to expressing himself as he wished. You are trying to use exceptions (from Beethoven's EARLY work) to show that he was a musical *** who pandered to the audience? This is absurd. Even Liszt used 4/4 for his late Nuages Gris- which sure as hell isn't a crowd pleaser. 4/4 is just NORMAL!!!!!!!!!! That is why it of so much interest when a composer DOES NOT use a normal time signature! It shows that he had something to convey! That fact would only supported further still were all this nonsense about 4/4 making money were true. Your argument would actively strengthen the argument for how significant deparatures from 4/4 are!!!! Can you not grasp this?


"I did not suggest anything of the sort. I never used the word "root" or such stuff. I assumed you would know 2/4 and 4/4 are in duple meter and the fact they are divisible by two is coincidental not because of the fact."

4/4 is actually quadruple meter, if we're using correct theoretical terminology- which is the very difference that you had been denying is a difference. You could say that 4/4 has a duple root, but to call it a duple meter is just plain wrong. The duple etc. is traditionally used to refer to the number of BEATS per bar, not as you used it to describe the duration of the root units. That's why I introduced the term "root", to describe what you were evidently referring to and distinguish it. 6/8 is a duple time signature (not a triple one), where the root unit is a group of 3. Also, considering that duple refers to 2 I don't think it's any "coincidence" that duple pieces are as a 100% rule divisible by 2.

"Thats my point. Notice how all of these were decisions you made, not the composer."

Prompted solely by the fact that the composer wrote it in 2/4!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If he did so, he would clearly be telling me something. Did I say he told me EXACTLY what to do? I certainly did not. I pointed out that by using 2/4, where 4/4 would clearly have been more natural, he is clearly telling me SOMETHING. Can you not grasp this? To write that piece in 2/4 it would make it overwhelmingly evident that the composer was trying to make a point to me.


"If you played it, exactly as it was written on the page and the beginner student played exactly as it was written on the page then the sound would be exactly the same."

Assuming there is not a single melodic inflection or rhythmic inflection and that the eye is able to shut out the position of the barlines and be totally unaffected? That's your way to prove that 2 and 4 are effectively the same? By thinking about what happens when you only think about playing the notes metronomically and at identical volume? DIFFERENT NOTATIONS IMPLY DIFFERENT INFLECTIONS IN THE SOUND! This just gets more and more ridiculous. Why don't you stop and think about all the differences I have shown you?

"But the time signature does not dictate these choices. Our back ground and our experiences would."

YES IT DOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Had he written it in 4/4, it would have looked normal and continuous. I'd have taken the single bar line as being nothing more than a technical necessity and seen a big 2 bar unit. I would never have made such a choice- UNLESS THE COMPOSER MADE THE CHOICE TO NOTATE IN SMALL UNITS! The composer prompted it, via his selection of notation. I'd have two choices- either take the composer for a fool or realise that he is trying to tell me something that he could not have told me by using 4/4.



Could I be really hope to be any more specific and detailed than that- in illustrating quite how different the results can be, based on whether the composer writes 2/4 or 4/4?

[mcdiddy1]

I forgot to mention that it conveys something different to the performer about how to perform the music, which is different to what would have happened had they notated in a 4/4 equivalent? Actually, I seem to recall that this has been something of a running theme, to put it mildly. Read my point about Mary had a little lamb in 2/4

.

Well everything you said about Mary had a little lamb is all subjective interpretive devices. If you cannot. Are you saying everything in 2/4 must be played with slurs and articulated different? Of course not. I am sure you are not trying to say time signature directly mean to phrase a certain way all the time. I hope you wouldn't attack a beginner who played it without playing it like you would and say no it must go like this.

No- YOU have repeatedly shown that you do not know what it means. You have claimed there is no difference because YOU are not aware of one. That does not mean that nobody knows what these things imply. And neither does it mean that those who do not consciously know could be affected by the visual impression of the notation. Visual cues are extremely powerful- which is exactly why beginners almost always stop at bar-lines. While that particular trait is negative, many other visual cues are part of what the composer wanted to convey in his selection of notation. That's why Chopin marked all his stems in the same direction for long melodies, rather than have the fragmented effect of changing direction constantly.

You would want to consider how many musicians from Classical to jazz players improvise music without worrying about bar lines. Jazz musicians are impressive in that they don't stop and ask , "what time signature is this in?". All they need is the beat and they key relationships and they create music. Creating music in this free and organic way came before notation. 

This is why music is best taught with a sound before sight principle. By starting with the sound and playing music the way it is meant to be played as organized yet free and expressive is better than starting by staring at notation.  That being said beginners "who almost always stop at bar-lines" are not well taught. Being taught this way is no different than studying typewriting and saying this note means this and such. If beginners are taught by rote and then introduced to notation then the principle of stoping at barlines is non existant. I teach a large number of student and none of them stop at barlines. I may mention it once in the beginning of their lessons but they way I teach they are taught how to do it first and then how to read it. 

If you rely on visual cues to do something that needs to happen aural I believe you will be forever limited to what you can do musically. I am perfectly aware of time signature and what they mean and what they they do.

What you tend to do with my statement is when they do not agree with what you think, you turn a statement I make and turn the dial all the way to something general, vague, and illogical to make it seem like your point of view is the only way of looking at something. Because I live in the land of possibilities rather than extreams my thoughts can include many points of view rather than one exclusivly. If you continue to alter my very specific and detail statements and then pick out and summarize then you can make anything that is logical suddenly illogical and irrational. Thats not a strong argument and tactics like that does nothing to prove what you are saying is true. Lets stick to facts and what is true rather than switching statements around.

"But the point is the fact it can be written in that way and not change the sound of the piece unless the performer interprate it differently. Lets get specific then. How about Beethoven's Piano Sonata No.8 in C minor9 ( The Pathetique) second movement. It is originally in 2/4. Instead of 2/4 play it in 4/4. Is it possible to play it in 4/4 or is it impossible?"

Yet another strawman? It's not about "possible". Indeed the very fact it was possible to have written it in a more normal 4/4 (yet was written in the less normal 2/4) certainly conveys something. What I have said this is about is that I would most certainly inflect the melody differently. While I do not accentuate the first beat of the 2nd bar heavily (or without blending it into the phrase), I would almost certainly do much more of an unaccent, were it in 4/4.

My whole point is that it is possible. You may try to bypass that but that is my point. It is possible to play this piece in both 4/4 and 2/4 . Would it change your interpretation of the piece? probably but that is not what I am talking about.  Would it change how you it would sounds if you played all the notes and rhythms if you followed it exactly to the letter without adding anything?  It shouldn't ( even though we may naturally inclined to do it). Everything you talk about playing it different makes sense musically but my point is only you can make thoese decisions, the decision is not made for you.

"The early Beethoven sonatas are comparativly not difficult. An intermediate student should have no problem with his early G major sonata."

Great. So Beethoven started life as a *** and moved on to expressing himself as he wished. You are trying to use exceptions (from Beethoven's EARLY work) to show that he was a musical *** who pandered to the audience? This is absurd. Even Liszt used 4/4 for his late Nuages Gris- which sure as hell isn't a crowd pleaser. 4/4 is just NORMAL!!!!!!!!!! That is why it of so much interest when a composer DOES NOT use a normal time signature! It shows that he had something to convey! That fact would only supported further still were all this nonsense about 4/4 making money were true. Your argument would actively strengthen the argument for how significant deparatures from 4/4 are!!!! Can you not grasp this?

Lol I love that. Why get so emotional about it. And that is a very dark way of looking of looking at Beethoven. I don't judge what Beethoven did, I am just pointing it out. It is well known Beethoven had money issues and eventually wrote music became for expressive of his changing feelings and taste. I would rather not give a Beethoven history lesson but in a nutshell , yes the opinions of others started to meanless to him. He was deaf at the end of his life anyways and often became more and more antisocial and irriatable through his life. Of course there is difficult music in 4/4. I have to admit than I am more interested in the common time signatures because I argue most of the great works of piano music uses them.

 I personally cannot thing of great piano works that depart from from the basics ( 4/4, 3/4, 6/8 etc) can you? What specific great piece that departs from these signatures are you refering to that has your interest so much? I don't consider anything outside of 4/4 interesting because 3/4 and 6/8 is almost as common. I can grasp it if you can prove there are great works that have unsual time signatures. If there are none, then I will stick to being interested in the basic ones and why they are so over used.

4/4 is actually quadruple meter, if we're using correct theoretical terminology- which the very difference that you had been denying is a difference. The duple etc. is used to refer to the number of beats per bar, not as you used it for the duration of smaller root units. That's why I distinguished the rooting in 2s. 6/8 is compound duple, but the root unit is a group of 3. Do you know that duple means relating to 2? Considering that, I don't think it's any "coincidence" that duple pieces are as a rule divisible by 2...

That is debatable because some people consider 4/4 a duple meter and some view it as quadruple meter. Duple meter or triple meter can be combined into larger measures, such as quadruple and sextuple meters which would be indicated by the top numbers being 4,6,12, and rarely 18. It is just a notational preference. I would rather not argue about the terminology. In regards to duple meter, duple meter are structures having two primary pulses in a group. I never used it for "duration of root units. Simple duple is the grouping of a primary pulse in two and each of the pulse dides into two parts, and compound the primary pulse is in twos, that divides into three part. When the top number is 2 or 3 then it is in a simple meter. What confuses me about what you say is your use of root. I am not dividing numbers, I am just grouping them into specific categories.

"Thats my point. Notice how all of these were decisions you made, not the composer."

Prompted solely by the fact that the composer wrote it in 2/4!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If he did so, he would clearly be telling me something. Did I say he told me EXACTLY what to do? I certainly did not. I pointed out that by using 2/4, where 4/4 would clearly have been more natural, he is clearly telling me SOMETHING. Can you not grasp this? To write that piece in 2/4 it would make it overwhelmingly evident that the composer was trying to make a point to me.

So where is the rule book written by the composer that tells you when you see this signature you must play my music this way?  I would love to read this book and see how his specific ideas apply to all of time signature in every style of music.

Did a composer you have never met or talked to tell you to do this? Or is based on previous conceptions based on what the performer has previous wrote and style ? If a composer wrote Mary had a little Lamb in 4/4 and another version in 2/4, how would you be able to so in that persons head and know they wanted you to add slurs and articulate that. If the composer wanted that, wouldn't the composer have simply wrote that to slurs and phrase it that way. Objectivly time signature does not indicate anything about that until you decide to put that on the music.

"If you played it, exactly as it was written on the page and the beginner student played exactly as it was written on the page then the sound would be exactly the same."

Assuming there is not a single melodic inflection or rhythmic inflection and that the eye is able to shut out the position of the barlines and be totally unaffected? That's your way to prove that 2 and 4 are effectively the same? By thinking about what happens when you only think about playing the notes metronomically and at identical volume?This just gets more and more ridiculous. Why don't you stop and think about all the differences I have shown you?

This a major flaw in your thing . Barlines have no musical significance. They are instrument of notation. Thats it.  The only purpose of barlines is to be able to quickly identify measures and for clarity sake. I think that is a fundamental difference between our philosohies. When in a music rehearsal have you heard someone say " hey, is there a barline here or not? where are suppose to stop. " Musicians do not talk about barlines because they mean nothing to music. Strong and weak beats come from different levels divisions not barlines.

So yes, you should not be reading barlines. Yes if you play the piece seperating previous conceptions of melodic inflections and rhythmic inflections and metronomically like the notation indicates then yes it would sound like a beginner. Why is that ridicioulous? Technically that is what the music says. It does not say play with melodic inflection, rhythmic inflection. All these concepts you bring up about doing on the music , slurs, articulation, melodic inflection, rhythmic inflection is all great stuff but it is no where on the page. All you have to do is scroll up and look at the music and you won't find it.

 You get my point now that there is more to music than can ever be described on the page? The same thing applies to the time signature. Yes it is there and it has a purpose but there are other aspects to it that are beyond just what it says.

But the time signature does not dictate these choices. Our back ground and our experiences would."

YES IT DOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Had he written it in 4/4, it would have looked normal and continuous. I'd have taken the single bar line as being nothing more than a technical necessity and seen a big 2 bar unit. I would never have made such a choice- UNLESS THE COMPOSER MADE THE CHOICE TO NOTATE IN SMALL UNITS! The composer prompted it, via his selection of notation. I'd have two choices- either take the composer for a fool or realise that he is trying to tell me something that he could not have told me by using 4/4.

To you it does and maybe that is the problem. I think you may not be able to see it from the point of view of a real beginner. If you change the time signature on them, they would play it exactly the same way. Your knowledge with other pieces changes your perception of what the time signature means. Maybe you are too stuck in your ways to even incorporate another point of view of music.

I think another issues is many people who have grown up with music have a sort of idol worship of composers and think they are beyond reproach. I know I may have shattered this image of composers knowing everything about their music and them being perfect and having a personal relationship with you.  I hate to tell you this but composers were every bit as human as you and me. They made mistakes, selfish, greedy, self-centered , and some where even close minded. Everything I am saying about these composers in centered in fact not just my personal opinion. I still admire much of their music but they are not the immortal Gods textbooks tend to make them. Some times composers wrote music and didn't not even realize all the details were and composed based on intuition rather than intention. Much of the great music they conceived is probably lost from us forever unfortunatly and notation is an attempt to capture what they did with music. All of my teachers have been able to find some surprising emmision in the notation of pieces based on the mistakes of music editors.

So you are right as a result as result of the knowledge I am very skeptical of notation and that we must follow "each detail on the page" because  they were handed straight down from the composer themselves because that simply is not true. Music is deeply edited and editors make mistakes all the time and we should not simply take every marking on the page as the word of the composer. I does not mean we should do exactly what is there but I think taking the information with a grain of salt and getting more knowledge can only improve you level of musicianship not hurt it.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Well everything you said about Mary had a little lamb is all subjective interpretive devices. If you cannot. Are you saying everything in 2/4 must be played with slurs and articulated different? Of course not. I am sure you are not trying to say time signature directly mean to phrase a certain way all the time. I hope you wouldn't attack a beginner who played it without playing it like you would and say no it must go like this."

The details are subjective. However, if a composer wrote that melody in 2/4- when it could so much more easily have been written in 4/4, there are two possibilities. The composer is a total fool, or he's trying to convey smaller units, rather than larger continuous ones.

"You would want to consider how many musicians from Classical to jazz players improvise music without worrying about bar lines. Jazz musicians are impressive in that they don't stop and ask , "what time signature is this in?". "

Irrelevant. I'm  talking about where the composer DID give an instructions- especially when he could have used a more standard one but chose not to. And jazz musicians will regularly play with more of 2 or 4 feel. If you notated a performance, it could be of great importance what time signature were selected. Also, clearly you know nothing of modern jazz. They sure as hell practise counting their 7s and 11s etc.

"This is why music is best taught with a sound before sight principle."  

When performing a composition it is inherently sight before sound (unless you are copying someone else). Again, this irrelevant to the discussion. It's something totally different.

"If you rely on visual cues to do something that needs to happen aural I believe you will be forever limited to what you can do musically."

So everyone who reads classical music from a score (instead of copying someone else's performance) is limited? A truly bizarre argument. Classical music inherently operates around TRANSLATION of what is on the page into sound.

"Because I live in the land of possibilities rather than extreams my thoughts can include many points of view rather than one exclusivly."

As evidenced by your saying that composers picked time signatures for convenience and "not" to say anything about how the music should sound? Whatever your opinion of yourself is, it did not come across through such statements. Try demonstrating your open mindedness through your actions, rather than by telling me about it.


"Would it change how you it would sounds if you played all the notes and rhythms if you followed it exactly to the letter without adding anything? It shouldn't ( even though we may naturally inclined to do it)."

My last post already covered this. Why are you making an obsolete point? A score does not only contain note lengths and pitches. The choice of metre conveys something about the sound. The metre SHOULD change the sound! By extension of your argument, would it follow that a performer who makes no distinction between 3/4 and 6/8 is still following the score to the letter. As I say, you cannot have you cake and eat it. If neglecting the difference between 2/4 and 4/4 counts as following a score to the letter, it follows that failing to illustrate the difference between 3/4 and 6/8 is also following the score to the letter. It is not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



"That is debatable because some people consider 4/4 a duple meter and some view it as quadruple meter."

It is not debatable. They have a common root of two. They are not both duple meters. Only people who do not understand the distinction between 2/4 and 4/4 claim 4/4 is duple. It is not.

"Duple meter or triple meter can be combined into larger measures, such as quadruple and sextuple meters which would be indicated by the top numbers being 4,6,12, and rarely 18. It is just a notational preference."

This assertion is an example of your open mind, is it? How do you know it's not intended to convey something about the performance- when the composer had a simpler alternative yet chose to make it more complex? You are passing off highly dubious and unevidenced speculation as if it were fact. Open your mind, for Christ's sake! Is it too much merely to ask that you do not dismiss things outright with such blase casualness?

Also, you are wrong. Six at the top is not "sextuple" meter. It is compound duple. 6/8 or 6/4 is two beats per bar. Similarly, 12 signifies compound quadruple. I'd read up on music theory.

"When the top number is 2 or 3 then it is in a simple meter. What confuses me about what you say is your use of root. I am not dividing numbers, I am just grouping them into specific categories."

Clearly you are. Or you would refer to 4/4 as quadruple. Evidently you referred to it as duple, because you divided it into a unit of strong weak. If you had not divided anything, you would call it the quadruple that it actually is. Unit of threes are strong weak weak. And no, I'm not saying that means every downbeat is blasted out. But this general basis is specifically what defines the basic units. It's what distinguishes 3/4 and 6/8. One is two threes, the other three twos.

"So where is the rule book written by the composer that tells you when you see this signature you must play my music this way?  I would love to read this book and see how his specific ideas apply to all of time signature in every style of music."

I have no response other than to tell you put the strawman away.

"Did a composer you have never met or talked to tell you to do this? Or is based on previous conceptions based on what the performer has previous wrote and style ? If a composer wrote Mary had a little Lamb in 4/4 and another version in 2/4, how would you be able to so in that persons head and know they wanted you to add slurs and articulate that."

Read my last post. I already covered that is says SOMETHING- not specifics. Unless the composer is a fool, he would not have divided into small units unless he wanted that to be reflected in performance. How I reflect that is my business. The fact he wanted me to reflect it is implicit in use of such small bars.



"This a major flaw in your thing . Barlines have no musical significance."

So little significance that a composer would make a decision to put quite so many in Mary had a little lamb? You're still totally blind to the point and your mind remains totally closed, in spite of all the evidence I am giving you.



"So yes, you should not be reading barlines."

My, what an open mind...


"All these concepts you bring up about doing on the music , slurs, articulation, melodic inflection, rhythmic inflection is all great stuff but it is no where on the page. All you have to do is scroll up and look at the music and you won't find it."

If you're not interested in considering the detailed points I have made  or opening your mind, this is pointless. WHY do you think any composer with half a brain would load Mary had a little lamb with barlines every two notes, unless he were trying to tell me something? It IS on the page. This is what's known as circular logic- using something to prove itself. The result of taking different meters as meaning nothing cannot be used to prove that different meters mean nothing.  If meter were not an instruction, it would be fine to play Fur Elise with accentuation in two threes. Beethoven's time signatures tells us that this would be wrong. If you are blind to the meaning of meter (which is very much found on the page), that does not make it meaningless.


"You get my point now that there is more to music than can ever be described on the page?"

Another strawman? Jesus. Do you understand that the word SOMETHING does not mean EVERYTHING? Will you please stop putting 2+2 together and making 983? You're not even succeeding in making 5 here.


"I think you may not be able to see it from the point of view of a real beginner. If you change the time signature on them, they would play it exactly the same way. Your knowledge with other pieces changes your perception of what the time signature means. Maybe you are too stuck in your ways to even incorporate another point of view of music."

Too stuck in my ways to think as simplistically and ignorantly as a beginner does, when playing great music? Is inexperience at picking up on the composers' cues something to aspire to? Should I also aspire to forget to pay attention to key signatures more often, or only time signatures? Simply unbelievable...

[mcdiddy1]

The details are subjective. However, if a composer wrote that melody in 2/4- when it could so much more easily have been written in 4/4, there are two possibilities. The composer is a total fool, or he's trying to convey smaller units, rather than larger continuous ones.

That is one point of view to the use of time signature, all I am going to say is it is not the only one.

"You would want to consider how many musicians from Classical to jazz players improvise music without worrying about bar lines. Jazz musicians are impressive in that they don't stop and ask , "what time signature is this in?". "

Irrelevant. I'm  talking about where the composer DID give an instructions- especially when he could have used a more standard one but chose not to. And jazz musicians will regularly play with more of 2 or 4 feel. If you notated a performance, it could be of great importance what time signature were selected.

Jazz players also can play in a triple meter and/or swing feel also. It is relevent in the fact it highlights the differences between music making and notation. They just are not the same. Notation is just a carbon copy of what musicians actually do. To suggest we are some how limited to something on a page is silly. You would not stop a musician performing and improvising with each other and say "oh no sorry guys this is in 2/4 not 4/4 so play it this way". it is the other way. Musicians play a piece and a scribe or the composer tries his or her best to put it on paper. They are instructions but they do not describe all the musical concepts need to have the best performance.

"This is why music is best taught with a sound before sight principle." 

Compositions are inherently sight before sound. Again, this irrelevant to the discussion. It's something totally different.

That I think is a fundamental difference in philsophy we have. That is ultimatly where we disagree most. So with your philosophy the composer wrote the music and the performers played.

You realize most of the great composers were performers and much of the brilliant music they made was not captured in notation? I can imagine Mozart slaving over a sheet of music and trying to capture anything they can find in scribbled hand writting. Rather he was scribbling things down just to catch up with all the places his musical mind was going. It is not like he started writing and said " hmm I wonder how it sounds" play it and then say ok well now I will send it to my publisher.

 We may learn music this way, learn the symbols and then associate it with sound but it results in button pushers who do not think musically just react to a symbol. It is not irrelevant. It is the heart of why we disagree.  You may feel blindly fooling notation and never looking beyond it .I certain would never be able to convince you of the other way of getting to higher levels where you can create music. If that is this your view of music then that is where it will have to be.

So everyone who reads classical music from a score (instead of copying someone else's performance) is limited? A truly bizarre argument. Classical music inherently operates around TRANSLATION of what is on the page into sound

.

Yes, exactly. Reading music is not the same as performing. I argue as long as all you do is read music you do what machines can do and are limiting your self musically. I don't feel this is bizarre, I am certainly not the first one to ever say that.

"Would it change how you it would sounds if you played all the notes and rhythms if you followed it exactly to the letter without adding anythin

g? It shouldn't ( even though we may naturally inclined to do it)."

My last post already covered this. Why are you making an obsolete point? A score does not only contain note lengths and pitches. The choice of metre conveys something about the sound. The metre SHOULD change the sound! By extension of your argument, would it follow that a performer who makes no distinction between 3/4 and 6/8 is still following the score to the letter. As I say, you cannot have you cake and eat it. If neglecting the difference between 2/4 and 4/4 counts as following a score to the letter, it follows that failing to illustrate the difference between 3/4 and 6/8 is following the score to the letter. It is not!!!!!

I love how you refuse to answer the question. I suspect by answering the question you would be proven wrong. Skipping over answer the question and rushing to preconceived judgment so you can have circlar answer is pointless don't you think? You say I am closed minded? Avoid an answer and repeating a point that was discussed long time ago does not prove your case.  I try and stay objective and to the facts and you rush to judgement. I gave you a simple experiment to prove my case. Instead of looking at fact and making an objective judgment of the results you curicuimvent it and call it obsolete. If you are right what is the harm in answering the question.

"That is debatable because some people consider 4/4 a duple meter and some view it as quadruple meter."

It is not debatable. They have a common root of two. They are not both duple meters. Only people who do not understand the distinction between 2/4 and 4/4 claim 4/4 is duple. It is not.

It is debatable. Just look it up. Some feel it is duple because they say 4/4 is a combination of two duple meters. Don't shoot the messenger.

"Duple meter or triple meter can be combined into larger measures, such as quadruple and sextuple meters which would be indicated by the top numbers being 4,6,12, and rarely 18. It is just a notational preference."

This assertion is an example of your open mind, is it? How do you know it's not intended to convey something about the performance- when the composer had a simpler alternative? You are passing speculation as if it were fact. Open your mind, for Christ's sake! Is it too much merely to ask that you do not dismiss things outright?

You seem to say that anyone who does not agree with your way of thinking as not having an open mind. I do have an open mind for things that make sense and can be proven. All I ask is to prove it and then i it makes sense and I cannot poke holes through it then I will take it as fact. I am not going to simply agree with you just because you said so. I have seen nothing you have said has been based in history, fact, proof, just do it is because I said it is. Sorry thats not
convincing enough. I can easily be convinced but by subjective opinion.

Clearly you are. Or you would refer to 4/4 as quadruple. You refer to it as duple, presumably because you divided it into a unit of strong weak. If you had not divided anything, you would call it the quadruple that it actually is.

This is true. I do see 4/4 as duple. I can see the other side of the argument because traditionally 4/4 is considered quadruple. It has not thing to do with a unit of strong weak though.

"So where is the rule book written by the composer that tells you when you see this signature you must play my music this way?  I would love to read this book and see how his specific ideas apply to all of time signature in every style of music."

I have no respond other than to tell you put the strawman away

.

Another example of circling around the problem as a way of having to face up and answer the question. Calling things a "strawman argument" must be your way of saying no comment.

"Did a composer you have never met or talked to tell you to do this? Or is based on previous conceptions based on what the performer has previous wrote and style ? If a composer wrote Mary had a little Lamb in 4/4 and another version in 2/4, how would you be able to so in that persons head and know they wanted you to add slurs and articulate that."

Read my last post. I already covered that is says SOMETHING not specifics. Unless the composer is a fool, he would not have divided into small units unless he wanted that to be reflected. How I reflect that is my business. The fact he wanted me to reflect it is implicit in using such small bars

.

Thats my point . It is your buisness. It is not reflective of what the composer wrote. "Something not specific" is once again a subjective ideas. But like you said you cant have it both ways. You cant say the composer " wanted me to reflect it" and then say "how I reflect that is my business". They are not the same thing.

"This a major flaw in your thing . Barlines have no musical significance."

So little significance that a composer would make a decision to put quite so many in Mary had a little lamb? You're still totally blind to the point.

So if I am blind, what do barlines mean to you?

"So yes, you should not be reading barlines."

My, what an open mind...

Yup I still do have an open mind. You can take anything said out of context and make it seem silly. Notationally barlines are useful to finding your place in the music. Musicially you should not be reading barlines when you are performing music.

"All these concepts you bring up about doing on the music , slurs, articulation, melodic inflection, rhythmic inflection is all great stuff but it is no where on the page. All you have to do is scroll up and look at the music and you won't find it."

If you're not interested in considering the detailed points or opening your mind I have made, this is pointless. WHY do you think any composer with half a brain would load Mary had a little lamb with barlines every two notes, unless he were trying to tell me something. It IS on the page. Your personal ignorance about the significance of such matters does not render it non-existant.

If you say i need to open my mind, then I would expect you do the same. All you have to do is answer the question. I guess cause you won't Ill answer it for you.
Does the music say to add slurs: no
Does the music say to add articulation:no
Does the music say to phrase differently:no
Are there any indications of slurs or articulation:no
Does the time signature mean to add slurs and articulation: What think you think the answer is going to be. 

This is an example of a subject statement: The composer tells me to add slurs and articulation based on the time signature.

Ask any music theory teacher if that is what the time signature says or look up any defenition anywhere and you will not find it. I keep an open mind to multiple sources. If I listen to all subjective statements about how someone "feels" then I would be in big trouble.

"I think you may not be able to see it from the point of view of a real beginner. If you change the time signature on them, they would play it exactly the same way. Your knowledge with other pieces changes your perception of what the time signature means. Maybe you are too stuck in your ways to even incorporate another point of view of music."

Too stuck in my ways to think as simplistically as a beginner does when playing great music? Unbelievable...

I do think we can get so influenced in our background we cannot accept any other point of view other than what we know. There is a saying the more you know about music, the more you learn the less you know. I really find that true. I respect your point of view. I just find it very narrow. I don't claim to know everything about music or ever will but I am willing to consider another point of view without trying to go on attack mode. Calling every point of view different from your own as being ignorant and blind is on reflectant of your character not mine.

 You could actually learn a great deal by teaching a beginner.I heard somewhere you do not really know anything until you can explain it to a five year old.

 If you cannot have enough objective evidence to not resort to personal attacks on other peoples character then you should seriously question if you really know something as well as though you did and wether you need to find more proof to back it up. If you can't find it , then maybe it was never true in the first place. Just a thought.

[nyiregyhazi]

argh

[nyiregyhazi]

"You would not stop a musician performing and improvising with each other and say "oh no sorry guys this is in 2/4 not 4/4 so play it this way"."

Actually, I do not find that hard to imagine at all. You think a jazz composer playing a new composition with his band would never have the faintest ideas about the pattern of accentuation he wished from them? Are you kidding? If anything this goes to illustrate that the feel for meter and pulse goes BEYOND the page, as well as creating strong visual impressions when notated. Do you think Mozart was unconcerned with the frequency of accentuation when he played- simply because it was not notated? Notation is selected to REFLECT the composer's intentions and to try to convey them. It's not separate.


"Yes, exactly. Reading music is not the same as performing. I argue as long as all you do is read music you do what machines can do and are limiting your self musically. I don't feel this is bizarre, I am certainly not the first one to ever say that."

So I have to repeat once again that taking a score as meaning SOMETHING does not mean thinking that it contains EVERYTHING about how to make music? If you're going to keep repeating these illogical strawman arguments, I'm not going to bother replying much longer. You're clearly not stopping to think before responding. Think about the subject, please- not the argument. When I receive a score of a piece I have never heard, the only thing I have from the composer is what I SEE! Are you unable to both read a score and maintain your own style of playing? Having personal ideas and considering instructions are not mutually exclusive concepts. You can do BOTH!

"I love how you refuse to answer the question. "

I didn't answer it because it contains a fallacy- ie. that playing a piece without reflecting the meter in any way accurately reflects what the score says. It would reflect a score with no bar lines, no time signature and no connections between notes to illustrate groupings. The score is not written that way- hence it would not be correct.

Your whole premise is definably in error. It's circular logic- that consists of using what happens when you ignore the time signature to "prove" that the time signature has no relevance. This a very basic error in logic. If your premise stood up 6/8 could "correctly" be played as 3/4 and vice versa- as I stated in my response. That would not be "correct" at all, as it would contradict the composer's instruction as whether he wanted 2 groups of 3, or 3 groups of 2. Would you please stop and think that through before responding? I'm tired of repeating answers to questions that not only have you already asked on many occasions, but which I have given responses to on many occasions. Would you like to consider that response and follow up on it?

"It is debatable. Just look it up. Some feel it is duple because they say 4/4 is a combination of two duple meters. Don't shoot the messenger. "

These people are obviously complete idiots. I'm not going to humour an ignorant mistake as being valid. That would refer to 2/2 and not 4/4. They are wrong if they think that. 2 is duple. 4 is quadruple. It's not rocket science. If they think 4/4 is duple, they have divided it into the root unit. Meter is correctly judged from beats- of which there are 4. Whether it naturally divides into root units of 2 or 3 is a separate issue. 4/4 is a quadruple meter.

"Another example of circling around the problem as a way of having to face up and answer the question. Calling things a "strawman argument" must be your way of saying no comment. "

What? Please look up the term. It's my way of saying I did not make the point you are arguing against. Why would I defend a point I never made and which I actually disagree with?
.

"So if I am blind, what do barlines mean to you?"

I have to explain again? If a composer throws them around left right and centre, by doing Mary had a a little lamb in2/4, they mean that either the composer notates like a fool or he wishes to convey a sense of subdivision. Why am I having to repeat this? Why are you not responding to this with a point of your own- instead of asking a question that has repeatedly been answered?
 

"Yup I still do have an open mind. You can take anything said out of context and make it seem silly. Notationally barlines are useful to finding your place in the music. Musicially you should not be reading barlines when you are performing music."

Are you blind to the irony involved in the contradiction between the first and last sentences? "should not be reading barlines"?


"This is an example of a subject statement: The composer tells me to add slurs and articulation based on the time signature."

And indeed a strawman argument. The time signature tells you the subdivisions. As I said, the details of how I reflect upon that are mine. Howver, the composer's notation in small units PROMPTS me to reflect his notation. I didn't say I know the one "correct" way to do that. I said that it is abundantly clear that he is telling me to play the music with more subdivision than if were in 4/4. It is not the same meaning as 4/4 would be. Can you honestly not understand this simple concept? Why would he be writing in 2/4 unless he wanted to me to reflect the smaller units? Why not 4/4. Especially in Mary had a little lamb- considering how much more natural it looks in 4/4.

Please tell me in a short concise statement why a composer would notate it in 2/4, unless he wanted it to look more fragmented and less continuous? Please tell me why he would not use 4/4. Because he had a lot of spare ink? What you are not stopping to consider is that the more surprising and unexpected a composer's notation is, the more likely it is that he is trying to convey something. 4/4 and 2/4 could not be more different in this context.

"I respect your point of view. I just find it very narrow."

This is hilarious!!!! You say that the meter should never be reflected in performance and that composers never intended for this to be so (even when they used unusual time signatures). And you say it's narrow of me to think that their selections might actually reflect on what they were trying to tell us and hence demand consideration! It's narrow minded to explore the possibility that composer's wished to communicate SOMETHING- whereas it's open minded to exclude the possibility that their time signatures have ANY musical relevance or that there should be a difference between the results of 2/4 and 4/4? Remarkable indeed.

[mcdiddy1]

Actually, I do not find that hard to imagine at all. You think a jazz composer playing a new composition with his band would never have the faintest ideas about the pattern of accentuation he wished from them? Are you kidding? If anything this goes to illustrate that the feel for meter and pulse goes BEYOND the page, as well as creating strong visual impressions when notated. Do you think Mozart was unconcerned with the frequency of accentuation when he played- simply because it was not notated? Notation is selected to REFLECT the composer's intentions and to try to convey them. It's not separate.

Yes you should be concerned about pattern of accentuation, but the pattern can change despite a notational change in the time signature.

" So I have to repeat once again that taking a score as meaning SOMETHING does not mean thinking that it contains EVERYTHING about how to make music? If you're going to keep repeating these illogical strawman arguments, I'm not going to bother replying much longer. You're clearly not stopping to think before responding. Think about the subject, please- not the argument. When I receive a score of a piece I have never heard, the only thing I have from the composer is what I SEE! Are you unable to both read a score and maintain your own style of playing? Having personal ideas and considering instructions are not mutually exclusive concepts. You can do BOTH!

Beginners who cannot read concentrate on reading rather than ideas. Depends on who you are refering to

I didn't answer it because it contains a fallacy- ie. that playing a piece without reflecting the meter in any way accurately reflects what the score says. It would reflect a score with no bar lines, no time signature and no connections between notes to illustrate groupings. The score is not written that way- hence it would not be correct.

Your whole premise is definably in error. It's circular logic- that consists of using what happens when you ignore the time signature to "prove" that the time signature has no relevance. This a very basic error in logic. If your premise stood up 6/8 could "correctly" be played as 3/4 and vice versa- as I stated in my response. That would not be "correct" at all, as it would contradict the composer's instruction as whether he wanted 2 groups of 3, or 3 groups of 2. Would you please stop and think that through before responding? I'm tired of repeating answers to questions that not only have you already asked on many occasions, but which I have given responses to on many occasions. Would you like to consider that response and follow up on it?

It is a simple question with a simple answer. Whatever reason you have for not answering it is personal. If from all the discussion you think my point it to "ignore the time signature to "prove" that the time signature has no relevance."  than writing more has no point. If anyone one respects the importance of the time signature, its me. I just am able to differentiate it's purpose in way apparently others can't.

I have to explain again? If a composer throws them around left right and centre, by doing Mary had a a little lamb in 2/4, they mean that either the composer notates like a fool or he wishes to convey a sense of subdivision. Why am I having to repeat this? Why are you not responding to this with a point of your own- instead of asking a question that has repeatedly been answered?

What does subdivision have to do with time signature? A piece in 4/4 would have the same subdivision as a piece in 4/6. I think you mean phrasing. This is the most basic definition I could find is
Time signature is a notational convention used in Western musical notation to specify how many beats are in each measure and which note value constitutes one beat.

Saying anything eles is indicated in music beyond this basic definition is subjective.

There is some pieces by composer such as Erik Satie who use free time, music without a time signature. There is a stately pulse played through out the music but later on some composers write without even relying on pulse. My point is time signature has a functions but beyond that is left to the will of the performer. For you, it may be subdivision but that does not mean everyone eles is wrong.

Please tell me in a short concise statement why a composer would notate it in 2/4, unless he wanted it to look more fragmented and less continuous? Please tell me why he would not use 4/4. Because he had a lot of spare ink? What you are not stopping to consider is that the more surprising and unexpected a composer's notation is, the more likely it is that he is trying to convey something. 4/4 and 2/4 could not be more different in this context.

How about because the composer did not care about what it looked like. The relationship of music notation is not the same for every composer. In Beethoven's original Manuscripts (which can be viewed at Julliard website) his music looks like chicken scratch, messy, incomplete measures, and a lack of bar lines. He clearly labored over his music apparently how it was notated on paper was not the first thing on his mind but getting his ideas down. I think it is a misconception he was laboring over where to place his bar lines in reference to what beat is strong or weak. He clearly moved from the conventions of music taught to him by Haydn to more expansive and "romantic" style where bar lines are based on convention rather than necessity.

Chopin's and other such composers increasing use of expressive techniques of rubato in dacite the moving trend to more from the conventions of metric stress and restrictions of barlines.

"I respect your point of view. I just find it very narrow."

This is hilarious!!!! You say that the meter should never be reflected in performance and that composers never intended for this to be so (even when they used unusual time signatures). And you say it's narrow of me to think that their selections might actually reflect on what they were trying to tell us and hence demand consideration! It's narrow minded to explore the possibility that composer's wished to communicate SOMETHING- whereas it's open minded to exclude the possibility that their time signatures have ANY musical relevance or that there should be a difference between the results of 2/4 and 4/4? Remarkable indeed.

What is remarkable is after all I said about time signature all you go is that I intend to" exclude the possibility that their time signatures have ANY musical relevance or that there should be a difference between the results of 2/4 and 4/4". That is what I said? Really ? I think I will let what I wrote speak for itself . Unfortunately I cannot control the way you comprehend opinions that differ from yours. All I can say in a nutshell is no I did not say that and maybe you should find an impartial person to help explain what I wrote to you.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Yes you should be concerned about pattern of accentuation, but the pattern can change despite a notational change in the time signature."

Who suggested otherwise?


"Beginners who cannot read concentrate on reading rather than ideas. Depends on who you are refering to"

Why would we base this around beginners? Beethoven did not aim his sonatas at beginners. Chopin did not aim his Etudes at beginners.  They aimed them at people who have the experience to read their notation AND interpret it. Are you seeking to imply that great musicians no longer read the score of the music they play or take the time to consider the fine details of what the composer was trying to tell them? The above point is woefully short-sighted. Professionals do not have ideas INSTEAD of reading the score properly. They have them AS WELL AS reading the score properly.


"What does subdivision have to do with time signature? A piece in 4/4 would have the same subdivision as a piece in 4/6. I think you mean phrasing."

I most certainly do not. As I said, if Mary had a little lamb were written in 2/4- with 2 notes per bar rather than 4 notes per bar, the composer would be presenting me with twice as many subdivisions. Either that composer would be a reckless fool when it comes to notation, or he would be telling me something. Clearly you were assuming that myself and others would not draw significance when you made the example. You were mistaken. I would draw tremendous significance from it.

"Saying anything eles is indicated in music beyond this basic definition is subjective."

Not true. I bring you back to 6/8 and 3/4. If you accent 6/8 at three twos, you are playing it wrongly, as if it were 3/4. Many pianists play the last movement of the Tempest completely incorrectly by making it sound like a duple time signature. Beethoven marked a triple meter.  

"My point is time signature has a functions but beyond that is left to the will of the performer. For you, it may be subdivision but that does not mean everyone eles is wrong. "

I never suggested that. I suggested that it illustrates that the composer wishes to communicate something. Conversely, you have made the blanket assertion that it's wrong if a listener can hear whether a piece is in 2/4 or 4/4. You are the one that dictated that reflecting such a difference of time signature is unacceptable and you are totally off the mark in making such an assertion.

"How about because the composer did not care about what it looked like. The relationship of music notation is not the same for every composer. "

A composer would draw so many barlines because he did not care what it looked like? Dubious logic to put it mildly. Such a composer would notate Mary had a little lamb in the more expected 4/4. Sorry, but I do not find unevidenced speculation that totally conflicts with the evidence to be a persuasive argument.

"I think it is a misconception he was laboring over where to place his bar lines in reference to what beat is strong or weak. He clearly moved from the conventions of music taught to him by Haydn to more expansive and "romantic" style where bar lines are based on convention rather than necessity."

And as for the 2/4 movement in op. 110? These are not prosaic barlines. If he were following convention, he'd have written it in 4/4. When a composer takes the trouble to write far more barlines than is necessary, it demands consideration. It The movement could easily have been done in 4/4. He CHOSE to use a lot more barlines- which conveys something important about his intention that 4/4 would not convey. Your argument falls at the first hurdle.  


"What is remarkable is after all I said about time signature all you go is that I intend to" exclude the possibility that their time signatures have ANY musical relevance or that there should be a difference between the results of 2/4 and 4/4". That is what I said?"

Do I have to quote you once again?


Regarding 2/4 and 4/4:

"You can listen to a piece of music and determine whether it is duple( groups of two) or triple ( groups of three) but you should not be able to tell if it is in 2/4 or 4/4 because pieces in duple can be written with either meter signature."  

and

"I argue if you erase the 4/4 and put 2/4 instead the piece should not be played different."

regarding the idea that time signatures in general convey nothing of musical relevancel:

"Time signature is choosen out of convience not because it changes the music."

If you do not wish to have ignorant assertions attributed to you, do not make them. And please don't come up with any nonsense about being taken "out of context". Unequivocal statements like those are the same in any context.

Are you trying to deny having made those statements? Or are you saying that you no longer hold such beliefs?

[mcdiddy1]

Why would we base this around beginners? Beethoven did not aim his sonatas at beginners. Chopin did not aim his Etudes at beginners.  They aimed them at people who have the experience to read their notation AND interpret it. Are you seeking to imply that great musicians no longer read the score of the music they play or take the time to consider the fine details of what the composer was trying to tell them? The above point is woefully short-sighted. Professionals do not have ideas INSTEAD of reading the score properly. They have them AS WELL AS reading the score properly.

Fur Elise has nothing a beginner would sweat over and Chopin wrote some relativly simple Preludes.  Composers did not just write for the professional, they wrote for begginers too. Professionals do both ideas and read, beginners as a whole do not unfortunatly and have enough trouble with reading.

Not true. I bring you back to 6/8 and 3/4. If you accent 6/8 at three twos, you are playing it wrongly, as if it were 3/4. Many pianists play the last movement of the Tempest completely incorrectly by making it sound like a duple time signature. Beethoven marked a triple meter.

 

Point well taken, but you are talking about the different kinds of time signatures(  duple/triple/quadruple) rather than dealing with what the times signature purpose is. The point is time signatures deal with meter not with phrasing, articulation, and other musical concepts. It can be used to get ideas but directly it is not responsible for it.

I never suggested that. I suggested that it illustrates that the composer wishes to communicate something. Conversely, you have made the blanket assertion that it's wrong if a listener can hear whether a piece is in 2/4 or 4/4. You are the one that dictated that reflecting such a difference of time signature is unacceptable and you are totally off the mark in making such an assertion.

Good thing I did not indent a blanket assertion. Like the example you use previously, there are some who feel because something is in 2/4 they must use a dynamic accent the downbeat on every measure to show the difference. That works in some pieces but certainly not all. So in that sense if a listener can hear, every downbeat like a hammer generally that is unmusical.

"How about because the composer did not care about what it looked like. The relationship of music notation is not the same for every composer. "

A composer would draw so many barlines because he did not care what it looked like? Dubious logic to put it mildly. Such a composer would notate Mary had a little lamb in the more expected 4/4. Sorry, but I do not find unevidenced speculation that totally conflicts with the evidence to be a persuasive argument.

Composers colabborate with publishers and editors before their music is released. What I am suggesting is the possibility the bars lines were not totatly under control. You don't have to take my word for it, just look at the composers original manuscripts for yourself and come to your own opinion. They don't resemble the clean and orderly printed music we have now. Its not "unevidenced speculation" when you are looking at the composer's own writing.

A

nd as for the 2/4 movement in op. 110? These are not prosaic barlines. If he were following convention, he'd have written it in 4/4. When a composer takes the trouble to write far more barlines than is necessary, it demands consideration. It The movement could easily have been done in 4/4. He CHOSE to use a lot more barlines- which conveys something important about his intention that 4/4 would not convey. Your argument falls at the first hurdle.

 

My argument does not rest on one example of Beethoven's music. It rest the possibility there is more than one reason to choose a time signature.

"What is remarkable is after all I said about time signature all you go is that I intend to" exclude the possibility that their time signatures have ANY musical relevance or that there should be a difference between the results of 2/4 and 4/4". That is what I said?"

Do I have to quote you once again?


Regarding 2/4 and 4/4:

"You can listen to a piece of music and determine whether it is duple( groups of two) or triple ( groups of three) but you should not be able to tell if it is in 2/4 or 4/4 because pieces in duple can be written with either meter signature." 

and

"I argue if you erase the 4/4 and put 2/4 instead the piece should not be played different."

regarding the idea that time signatures in general convey nothing of musical relevancel:

"Time signature is choosen out of convience not because it changes the music."

In order these quotes, you have to understand the difference between playing music note for note and then playing it with an interpretation. I will try and break it down one more time .

 You can play a piece of music dryly with no dynamics, accents, or phrasing. In the case of playing the music with just the notes and rhythms then you can change the time signature if it is in the same family ,duple for example, without the end sound result changing.

 If you are playing the music with dynamics, accents, phrasing, considering subdivisions, stress etc (also know as playing with an interpretation) then yes the time signature can be used to create that.

Being interchangeable does not mean not important or relevant. It just means you can change it and it would not affect the way the rhythm is played.  This is where you are getting caught up in.

I started off just like you and assumed 4/4 is played this way because it is written on the page and it must be that way. When you get in to a broad selection of music in more unusualy time signatures such as 7/8, 2/16 etc then things didn't make sense. i understand what you're point of view because I would have said the same thing because these are some of the "untruths" we are taught about music that makes it easier to teach certain pieces but is too general to be applied to music as a whole.

if you cannot understand the difference between playing with an interpretation and just playing the notes then it will not make sense to you. But do notice in both examples time signature is important, although one is more important than the other because it affects more areas. If you continue to just blend what I said all together, then you will get silly statments you say  "2/4 are the all the same and time signatures are not important." which is of course not true

[nyiregyhazi]

"Fur Elise has nothing a beginner would sweat over and Chopin wrote some relativly simple Preludes."

Musically simple? Can I remind you that we have been talking about musical issues of execution- not the ability to play notes in the right order?

 "The point is time signatures deal with meter not with phrasing, articulation, and other musical concepts. It can be used to get ideas but directly it is not responsible for it."

You're just wrong, sorry. Beethoven's 2/4 in op. 110's 2nd movement most certainly is responsible for the fact that performers will (and indeed do) play it differently to 4/4. Change to 4/4 and a performer will not play it the same. Believe what you will, but I don't believe that it's any accident that Beethoven chose to throw so many barlines in. Above all, you're in no position to tell anybody that he did if for convenience and "not" to convey anything about the musical execution.

"Like the example you use previously, there are some who feel because something is in 2/4 they must use a dynamic accent the downbeat on every measure to show the difference. That works in some pieces but certainly not all. So in that sense if a listener can hear, every downbeat like a hammer generally that is unmusical."

So, you judge it from the assumption that the only way to distinguish the two is to hammer downbeats? That's your basis for saying that a listener should never be able to distinguish between 2 and 4? For more sophisticated performers, it's possible to distinguish 2 and 4 without simply thumping out accents. Most players make a hideous sound when they try to play fortissimo. However, that does not mean that I'd ban fortissimo. You cannot rule things out based on what some people do badly.

"Composers colabborate with publishers and editors before their music is released. What I am suggesting is the possibility the bars lines were not totatly under control."

Rather than resort to unsubstantiated speculation in a last-ditch bid to protect a pre-conceived belief, why not simply look at what is staring you in the face? The best you can do is to speculate that sometime publishers changed time signatures? Do you have any ACTUAL evidence that Beethoven did not want the movement to be in 2/4? This is an extremely flimsy way to trying to avoided the issue.


"You don't have to take my word for it, just look at the composers original manuscripts for yourself and come to your own opinion. They don't resemble the clean and orderly printed music we have now. Its not "unevidenced speculation" when you are looking at the composer's own writing."

The untidyness of Beethoven's handwriting brings into question a specific time signature? If you're going down that line, we're going to have to be equally mistrustful of every single marking in the printed scores. Are we going to look at each and every marking and think that his publisher might have added it and therefore we cannot assume it has significance? Once more, if you want to go down such a line of argument, you cannot have your cake and eat it. You can't just selectively use it to question only those things that are inconvenient to your beliefs. If you want to apply this to time signatures, you're going to have to treat every other marking with equal skepticism- unless you have specific evidence to bring this marking into question.


"if you cannot understand the difference between playing with an interpretation and just playing the notes then it will not make sense to you."

Nice strawman. What I am actually saying is how much a time signature conveys with regard to interpretation, among many other factors. But hey, why not pretend the opposite?

"Being interchangeable does not mean not important or relevant. It just means you can change it and it would not affect the way the rhythm is played."

Assuming that rhythm consists solely of note lengths. Once more, I have to remind you of the 3/4 and 6/8 issue? It shows that lengths alone do not reflect an instruction for a rhythm. Why are you still persisting with obsolete arguments? If you're interested in interpretation, why are you repeating this nonsense about what happens if you remove all dynamic inflection? To do so is to to fail to reflect the time signature- not to mention music making! Rhythm is not merely about lengths. If you're claiming the difference is between 2s and 3s, do I have to remind you of the Chopin nocturne example again? Why do you keep repeating these things? You already conceded that the nocturne would be affected by different notation. So if arranging multiples of 3 in a different order and layout can change the effect, why shouldn't different organisations of multiples of 2s convey something different?

"If you continue to just blend what I said all together, then you will get silly statments you say  "2/4 are the all the same and time signatures are not important." which is of course not true"

I didn't do any blending. I selected a few unequivocal, self-contained statements and quoted them verbatim. Your meaning was clear. If you've since changed your mind, I am very glad to hear it.

[nyiregyhazi]

The point about the difference between note lengths alone and a real life execution is that it is IMPOSSIBLE except for a computer, to reflect nothing but lengths. Simply to see something notated in either 2/4 or 4/4 is to be affected in some way. You cannot decided not to be affected by notation. Only by programming constant dynamics and appropriate lengths into a computer can something be stripped of interpretation altogether. Interpretation is not something we can choose to turn off.

[mcdiddy1]

Musically simple? Can I remind you that we have been talking about musical issues of execution- not the ability to play notes in the right order?

Like I said , nothing a beginner would sweat over. Assuming their are well taught, most beginners can handle it after a couple of months of lessons. I guess its relative to your level of experience.

You're just wrong, sorry. Beethoven's 2/4 in op. 110's 2nd movement most certainly is responsible for the fact that performers will (and indeed do) play it differently to 4/4. Change to 4/4 and a performer will not play it the same. Believe what you will, but I don't believe that it's any accident that Beethoven chose to throw so many barlines in. Above all, you're in no position to tell anybody that he did if for convenience and "not" to convey anything about the musical execution.

The fact you cannot differentiate between notation of the same music in to meters does not apply to everyone. You teach two people with the same music in two different time signatures, it will sound the same. If they choose to phrase it differently, that is reflective on their ability or inability to read notation not the basic execution of the music itself. This would be far easier to prove in person and with examples but it is what is.

So, you judge it from the assumption that the only way to distinguish the two is to hammer downbeats? That's your basis for saying that a listener should never be able to distinguish between 2 and 4? For more sophisticated performers, it's possible to distinguish 2 and 4 without simply thumping out accents. Most players make a hideous sound when they try to play fortissimo. However, that does not mean that I'd ban fortissimo. You cannot rule things out based on what some people do badly.

That is true. But a bar in 2/4 where in musical intent is dance like is different from a 2/4 bar where the musical intent in cantible.

Rather than resort to unsubstantiated speculation in a last-ditch bid to protect a pre-conceived belief, why not simply look at what is staring you in the face? The best you can do is to speculate that sometime publishers changed time signatures? Do you have any ACTUAL evidence that Beethoven did not want the movement to be in 2/4? This is an extremely flimsy way to trying to avoided the issue.

True, cannot say I have ever met him. But the same thing can be said of your argument. However all we have is stories of Beethoven and there have been many accounts of Beethoven's disagreements with publishers, musicians, and how his music should be played. Sometimes he did give in to pressure of other people. He certainly retained many classical elements in his compositions before moving on to more experimental techniques. While there is no evidence to indicate his thinking on every piece he ever wrote, what is known was he did change his music including time signatures to accommodate outside pressures.

The untidiness of Beethoven's handwriting brings into question a specific time signature? If you're going down that line, we're going to have to be equally mistrustful of every single marking in the printed scores. Are we going to look at each and every marking and think that his publisher might have added it and therefore we cannot assume it has significance? Once more, if you want to go down such a line of argument, you cannot have your cake and eat it. You can't just selectively use it to question only those things that are inconvenient to your beliefs. If you want to apply this to time signatures, you're going to have to treat every other marking with equal skepticism- unless you have specific evidence to bring this marking into question.

Exactly. Writing is a model of cognition. You write how you think and his thinking was labored and not restricted to barlines.

 I think having a health skepticism is good so you are not blindly following an erroneous path. Like I said I have found numerous of errors in various of editions. In the third movement of the Welstein some editors change his pedal markings, and even other alternative passages (particularly the glissando passage) into octaves. I made an informed decision that Beethoven wrote glissando octaves so I am going to play glissando octaves despite what an editor finds easier. If it is ever a question of musical intent vs notation I will go with musical intent everytime. I prefer Beethoven's music rather than what an editor decides for me but everyone has their own opinion on that.

Nice strawman. What I am actually saying is how much a time signature conveys with regard to interpretation, among many other factors. But hey, why not pretend the opposite?

The idea time signature has a role in interpretation, I have been saying since the beginning. I don't see that as a "strawman."

I didn't do any blending. I selected a few unequivocal, self-contained statements and quoted them verbatim. Your meaning was clear. If you've since changed your mind, I am very glad to hear it.

I don't think my meaning was clear because you didn't understand it. My mind is exactly the same as when I first started the discussion. I saw a great deal of summarizing into broad silly statements like "2/4 and 4/4 are the same". That doesn't even make sense musically because they have two different meanings by definition.

 What is there to change? I don't mix up playing notes and interpretation and i don't intend to. Your theory is based on " the composer intended something" , random pieces of Beethoven's use of the time signature, and just because I said so. Mine is based on music theory, music history, conducting, pedagogy, practical examples, composer's manuscripts, and personal experiences. Sorry, but I haven't seen anything beyond subjective opinions to change my mind about what I already said.  

[mcdiddy1]

The point about the difference between note lengths alone and a real life execution is that it is IMPOSSIBLE except for a computer, to reflect nothing but lengths. Simply to see something notated in either 2/4 or 4/4 is to be affected in some way. You cannot decided not to be affected by notation. Only by programming constant dynamics and appropriate lengths into a computer can something be stripped of interpretation altogether. Interpretation is not something we can choose to turn off.

That is a bit of a blanket statement. Something can affect the way you read something for example if the measures are crooked, or the notes are note clear, etc. However part of it depends on your ability to sight-read. If you are a good sight reader, you can read durations not based on how many notes are in each bar. You decide on a quarter-note being a certain speed, then the eight- note will be twice as fast, etc. Thats how performers are able to read music in free time- where there in no time signature present. Sight reading rhythm this way is based on the kinetic feel of the beats rather than simply assigning a beat number based on time signature.

Only computers can play with articulation, accents, dynamics, or phrasing? Really? Piano Beginners do it all the time. They play one note after a note with no connection, none of these elements and do it without blinking an eye. Just because you reach a higher level does not mean you cannot take out all of these elements. If you put them in you can surely take them out. This may not apply to you, specifically but it doesn't mean that applies to everyone.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Like I said , nothing a beginner would sweat over. Assuming their are well taught, most beginners can handle it after a couple of months of lessons. I guess its relative to your level of experience."

A level where I'm sure the difference between 2/4 and 4/4 is indeed nil. But I don't judge interpretation at such a level.
 

"That is true. But a bar in 2/4 where in musical intent is dance like is different from a 2/4 bar where the muical intent in cantible."

Yes. And what of it? They are still both affected by the 2. Nobody said that means disregarding anything else. What is your point supposed to be?
 

"Exactly. Writing is a model of cognition. You write how you think and his thinking was labored and not restricted to barlines."

WHY DID HE WRITE TWICE AS MANY AS NEEDED IN THAT WORK? Will you please stop and think about that, before replying? I'm making points but you are not following up on them. You are just repeating yourself, instead of furthering the discussion.

"I made an informed decision that Beethoven wrote glissando octaves so I am going to play glissando octaves despite what an editor finds easier. If it is ever a question of musical intent vs notation I will go with musical intent everytime. I prefer Beethoven's music rather than what an editor decides for me but everyone has their own opinion on that."

He just wrote octaves, I believe. I'm pretty certain he did not specifically ask for glissando although it may well be logical to assume he intended it.

"The idea time signature has a role in interpretation, I have been saying since the beginning. I don't see that as a "strawman.""

No you have not. You said that no listener should be able to hear any difference between 2/4 and 4/4. You said that would be wrong. I quoted such assertions verbatim various times! Who are you trying to fool? This is just getting tedious though. I'm more interested in the subject than in arguing about the pretence you had been saying something different. Your posts are there for all to see. I'm not going waste any more time on anything outside of the subject itself.

[nyiregyhazi]

"If you are a good sight reader, you can read durations not based on how many notes are in each bar. You decide on a quarter-note being a certain speed, then the eight- note will be twice as fast, etc. Thats how performers are able to read music in free time- where there in no time signature present. Sight reading rhythm this way is based on the kinetic feel of the beats rather than simply assigning a beat number based on time signature."

I'm not referring to counting, for God's sake! You totally misunderstand the nature of psychology and semiotics. Why do you think composers removed the barlines?

[mcdiddy1]

"That is true. But a bar in 2/4 where in musical intent is dance like is different from a 2/4 bar where the musical intent in cantible."

Yes,. And what of it? They are still both affected by the 2. Nobody said that means disregarding anything else. What is your point supposed to be?

That there are situations in music where making a not louder or putting space to indicate a difference in meter would be inappropriate.

Exactly. Writing is a model of cognition. You write how you think and his thinking was labored and not restricted to barlines."

WHY DID HE WRITE TWICE AS MANY AS NEEDED IN THAT WORK? Will you please stop and think about that, before replying? I'm making points but you are not following up on them. You are just repeating yourself, instead of furthering the discussion.

I did think about it. And I though why did he leave many of them out if they were so important? That question has already been answered so at the sake of not repeating myself im going leave the answer I gave before to speak for itself. The answers not going to change even if you do not agree.

I made an informed decision that Beethoven wrote glissando octaves so I am going to play glissando octaves despite what an editor finds easier. If it is ever a question of musical intent vs notation I will go with musical intent everytime. I prefer Beethoven's music rather than what an editor decides for me but everyone has their own opinion on that."

He just wrote octaves, I believe. I'm pretty certain he did not specifically ask for glissando although it may well be logical to assume he intended it.

Actually he wrote glissando octaves in both hands which is what makes the passage difficult. Some editions have just an octave scales come down in both hands. Just another reason to not trust editors. You honestly are not for certain what the composer meant is what is actually on the page. Just look at some of their choices for fingering. I have seen some strange choices and you really need a discerning eye to do it right.

N

o you have not. You said that no listener should be able to hear any difference between 2/4 and 4/4. You said that would be wrong. I quoted such assertions verbatim various times! Who are you trying to fool? This is just getting tedious though. I'm more interested in the subject than in arguing about the pretence you had been saying something different. Your posts are there for all to see. I'm not going waste any more time on anything outside of the subject itself.

More specifically then, no listener should be able to hear any difference between 2/4 and 4/4 in every possible situation. Like I said before, sometimes the interpretation matches up with doing so. And like I said before depending whether you are playing music with and interpretation or without.

[mcdiddy1]

"If you are a good sight reader, you can read durations not based on how many notes are in each bar. You decide on a quarter-note being a certain speed, then the eight- note will be twice as fast, etc. Thats how performers are able to read music in free time- where there in no time signature present. Sight reading rhythm this way is based on the kinetic feel of the beats rather than simply assigning a beat number based on time signature."

I'm not referring to counting, for God's sake! You totally misunderstand the nature of psychology and semiotics. Why do you think composers removed the barlines?

Psycology and semiotics? I am just mention another way some people read notation that allows them to not be limited when reading music. Some theory classes do that in rhythmic notation and some teachers teach that when teaching new rhythm patterns. When you understand pulse, subdivision, duration, and grouping then you will be able to understand any rhythm regardless of what the time signature ends up being. This is not refering to counting but reading notation which is what your post is about.

[nyiregyhazi]

"I did think about it. And I though why did he leave many of them out if they were so important? That question has already been answered so at the sake of not repeating myself im going leave the answer I gave before to speak for itself. The answers not going to change even if you do not agree."

So you thought about it and then changed the subject to an entirely different issue? That's about as productive and relevant as referencing his generally untidy handwriting to bring into question his specific use of 2/4 in that movement. Stop ducking the issue. I'm referring to the 2nd movement of op. 110. Please either address my point about this specific instance or stop wasting our time. In any case, would you please provide some reference for where he omitted bar lines? I would be most interested to see the context. Were it the case that he wished for a work to go without barline, that would be of tremendous interest. What you don't seem to understand is that I am interested in EVERY unusual use of metre and barlines. ANYTHING out of the ordinary suggests to me that he was likely trying to communicate something to the performer- otherwise why not keep it simple? Doing something else that is out of the ordinary in another instance does not bring into question the significance of his 2/4. That's like suggesting that a composer using ppp somewhere would bring into question whether he ever intended other pieces to be loud. It's totally illogical.

"Actually he wrote glissando octaves in both hands which is what makes the passage difficult. Some editions have just an octave scales come down in both hands. Just another reason to not trust editors."

Your "correction" is in error. Quite the contrary. Indeed, editors cannot be trusted- but it's really not hard to find an urtext to verify that the glissando is not of Beethoven's indication. It might well be argued as heavily implied, but it is certainly not stated. What edition are you using? No reference to glissando in the manuscript (and neither do I see any missing barlines):

https://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks/usimg/f/f7/IMSLP51155-PMLP01474-Op.53_Manuscript.pdf

"More specifically then, no listener should be able to hear any difference between 2/4 and 4/4 in every possible situation. Like I said before, sometimes the interpretation matches up with doing so."

No, what you stated was:

"You can listen to a piece of music and determine whether it is duple( groups of two) or triple ( groups of three) but you should not be able to tell if it is in 2/4 or 4/4 because pieces in duple can be written with either meter signature."  

and

"I argue if you erase the 4/4 and put 2/4 instead the piece should not be played different."

and

"Time signature is choosen out of convience not because it changes the music."

Apologies for not deducing that what you really meant was that sometimes the polar opposite of these unequivocal statements applies and sometimes it doesn't. How about showing enough humility to admit that you have since learned something and realised the error of what you had stated?

[nyiregyhazi]

Psycology and semiotics? I am just mention another way some people read notation that allows them to not be limited when reading music. Some theory classes do that in rhythmic notation and some teachers teach that when teaching new rhythm patterns. When you understand pulse, subdivision, duration, and grouping then you will be able to understand any rhythm regardless of what the time signature ends up being. This is not refering to counting but reading notation which is what your post is about.

You did not answer my question. Why are you explaining how to read rhythm without barlines? I don't have any particular problem in either either fathoming that it can be done, or in doing so myself- so what point are you attempting to illustrate to me? What does this pertain to? i did not mean that only a computer would be able to count without barlines. I meant that only a computer can play a series of notes without involving any level of dynamic inflection. It is impossible to remove such things altogether.

I am talking about the deeper implications of notation- such as why Satie notated Gnossiennes that blatantly fit 4/4 without a time signature or a single barline. Have you heard of any of those psychological experiments where people are given free choice over something- yet overwhelmingly high percentages make the same selection? The human brain has certain ways of working, that respond to certain types of stimulus. When we think we act independently, we frequently do not. The subconscious remains active.

I'll repeat my question: Why do you think composers made the decision to omit barlines? If anyone can could simply choose not to be influenced by them, what purpose would omitting them serve? Why would Satie feel a need to strip them from a piece that clearly exists in groups of 4 beats, if they meant nothing to performers? Don't side-step my question, please. Stop and think and then answer it.

You have totally missed the point about psychology and semiotics. I am not talking about how many beats a minim is correctly deemed to last for or other such absolutes. Your argument is constructed upon a wealth of erroneous premises. Firstly, you actually think a human being can choose to strip ALL expression and interpretation from any execution? You think they can play every note at identical volume in perfectly mechanical timing- that is totally independent of NOTATED barlines and meter? You are grossly mistaken.

Try recording yourself playing a nursery rhyme with no melodic inflections and no emphasis and flawlessly equal meter. Then compare it to a computerised version. Neither beginner or virtuoso could ever come close to stripping everything away. It never fails to surprise me how much more dead it sounds if I turn the dynamics off on my digital piano. I could never recreate that. And that's without even considering the difference between my rhythm and a flawlessly computerised execution! It's not about understanding the explanation of how long a note is deemed to last. It's about the psychology of semiotics plus chaos theory. Nobody is CAPABLE of playing like a robot, even if they wish to.

Nobody has the means to avoid being influenced by the visual impressions of notation. Experienced performers (mostly) learn not to stop at barlines, although beginners almost always will. However, they do not develop robotic immunity to all implications of notation. Many advanced performers deliberately make an effort to read between the lines of what a composer's notation might reveal. They SEEK the subtle clues that a composer leaves. They realise that a composer was trying to influence them and look for signs that go beyond minim= 2 beats etc.. If you honestly think there's a human in the world who can dispassionately read music purely in terms of notes and durations (and who can also execute that as coldly as a computer would) you are mistaken. Only a robot can fail to interpret. That is why even beginners are often influenced by the difference between 2/4 and 4/4- as well as why better performers tend to be influenced in rather more sophisticated and positive ways.

[nyiregyhazi]

Actually, one other possibility strikes me though. Composers lived in a time when there was no recording to use as a crib sheet. There are probably a lot of people who are so used to simply copying what they have heard, that they have never come to understand the implications of notational issues. Rather, they have just copied what they heard elsewhere and scarcely used their eyes at all. With expectations in their head, they could manage to ignore notational implications, and simply find pitches. When composers wrote their music, they knew that the performers would typically have nothing to go on but the sheet, plus their general musical knowledge.

In the case of Mary had a little lamb, most people probably would play it normally if they saw it written in 2/4. They would liekly ignore the notation and play as they have been used to hearing it- in completely ignorance of the fact that 2/4 would be rather odd and hence potentially significant. But what would happen if that same person were given a piece that they had never heard before in 2/4 and they had to start from notation? I'd be willing to bet that they would play it differently to it they saw a 4/4 notation. As soon as you leave a person with nothing but notation to go on, the ignorant and the experienced alike will be consciously or subconsciously influenced by the issues of notation.

[mcdiddy1]

So you thought about it and then changed the subject to an entirely different issue? That's about as productive and relevant as referencing his generally untidy handwriting to bring into question his specific use of 2/4 in that movement. Stop ducking the issue. I'm referring to the 2nd movement of op. 110. Please either address my point about this specific instance or stop wasting our time. In any case, would you please provide some reference for where he omitted bar lines? I would be most interested to see the context. Were it the case that he wished for a work to go without barline, that would be of tremendous interest. What you don't seem to understand is that I am interested in EVERY unusual use of metre and barlines. ANYTHING out of the ordinary suggests to me that he was likely trying to communicate something to the performer- otherwise why not keep it simple? Doing something else that is out of the ordinary in another instance does not bring into question the significance of his 2/4. That's like suggesting that a composer using ppp somewhere would bring into question whether he ever intended other pieces to be loud. It's totally illogical.

When did I change the subject? You asked and I answered. In that piece specifically although there are four bar phrase I think the time signature is the best fit because it fits with playful dance like character. This is an great example of when the known stress patterns do communicate a performance aspect to the music. It does not mean a performer would not benefit however from not only looking at how the piece could be practiced in consideration of 2 bars phrases and longer 4 bar phrases. I also think this time signature works better in this time signature rather than making 2/8 because it is clearer in 2/4. This doesn't disprove anything I said but rather supports your point about how 2/4 can communicate "characterization" and supports my point about developing an interpretation and writing in a time signature that is clear to the other audience.

 An example of his lack of bar lines are in his  Fifth piano concerto in the following link.
https://www.juilliardmanuscriptcollection.org/composers.php#/hires/BEET/BEET_EMPE/0

Your "correction" is in error. Quite the contrary. Indeed, editors cannot be trusted- but it's really not hard to find an urtext to verify that the glissando is not of Beethoven's indication. It might well be argued as heavily implied, but it is certainly not stated. What edition are you using? No reference to glissando in the manuscript (and neither do I see any missing barlines):

I have no idea how you read that. Well here is the first edition that is not in his own hand writing. The measure I am talking about is at the top of the second to last page Their is octaves in right hand with the fingering 1-5 which at that speed is impossible unless you do a light glissando. I have seen multiple editions with this fingering and some with alternative passages

https://216.129.110.22/files/imglnks/usimg/5/58/IMSLP51156-PMLP01474-Op.53.pdf

"More specifically then, no listener should be able to hear any difference between 2/4 and 4/4 in every possible situation. Like I said before, sometimes the interpretation matches up with doing so."

No, what you stated was:

"You can listen to a piece of music and determine whether it is duple( groups of two) or triple ( groups of three) but you should not be able to tell if it is in 2/4 or 4/4 because pieces in duple can be written with either meter signature." 

and

"I argue if you erase the 4/4 and put 2/4 instead the piece should not be played different."

and

"Time signature is chosen out of connivence not because it changes the music."

Apologies for not deducing that what you really meant was that sometimes the polar opposite of these unequivocal statements applies and sometimes it doesn't. How about showing enough humility to admit that you have since learned something and realized the error of what you had stated?

Nope, because you assume all playing comes with an interpretation. Like I stated before beginners play without interpretation all the time so if beginners can do it, professionals can do it well. When I speak of replacing 4/4 and putting 2/4 and "time signature is chosen out of connivence not because it changes the music", I am talking about a context where interpretation is not a factor. The only thing I could have done in hindsight was make clear the separation between playing with an interpretation. But in my defense I didn't think I would have to go into detail with that. If you aren't able to make that separation between playing with or without a interpretation then you will not be able to comprehend the point.  The point still is correct.

[nyiregyhazi]

"When did I change the subject? You asked and I answered. In that piece specifically although there are four bar phrase I think the time signature is the best fit because it fits with playful dance like character. This is an great example of when the known stress patterns do communicate a performance aspect to the music. It does not mean a performer would not benefit however from not only looking at how the piece could be practiced in consideration of 2 bars phrases and longer 4 bar phrases."

Indeed. But then I neither implied nor mentioned excluding thoughts of phrase lengths. I simply pointed out how much the regularity of barlines conveys about Beethoven's musical intentions, compared to what 4/4 would convey. I am glad that you can see this difference conveys something of musical significance. You had changed the subject when instead of referring to my example, you went straight to some general hearsay about a manuscript for some other unnamed piece than the example I gave. Thank you for sticking to the subject this time.

"This doesn't disprove anything I said but rather supports your point about how 2/4 can communicate "characterization" and supports my point about developing an interpretation and writing in a time signature that is clear to the other audience. "

Not really, to be honest. It would only do so if there were some known reason why he had considered the bizarre 2/8 yet changed his mind. I know of no such evidence. Departure from the more ordinary to something more extraordinary conveys something. Failure to use the truly extraordinary 2/8 does not convey anything- unless prior intent to do so were to be established. If someone runs to work when they usually walk, that's interesting. However, the fact that they are running instead of hopping/crawling to work is not terribly revealing- unless there's a context that means you might have expected them to hop.

"An example of his lack of bar lines are in his  Fifth piano concerto in the following link.
https://www.juilliardmanuscriptcollection.org/composers.php#/hires/BEET/BEET_EMPE/0"

It's messy to the point where I can barely make it out, but I'm not clear what you mean about the barlines. Which ones are missing? Also, do you presume that he wanted to printed version to be equally untidy? Messy writing does not particularly suggest to me that he was making a radical stand against the barline, that the published "corrected". I saw plenty of barlines there.

"Their is octaves in right hand with the fingering 1-5 which at that speed is impossible unless you do a light glissando. I have seen multiple editions with this fingering and some with alternative passages"

He wrote the fingering but he did not specify glissando. I'm not saying he didn't mean it, but that cannot be taken from granted. Horowitz and Cziffra both played single-handed octaves non glissando.


"Nope, because you assume all playing comes with an interpretation. Like I stated before beginners play without interpretation all the time so if beginners can do it"

This is an objectively fallacious statement. A beginner is incapable of doing no literally interpretation, just as a professional is. Go and record yourself playing a nursery rhyme with zero expression on a digital piano. Then try again with dynamics fully equalised.

"professionals can do it well. When I speak of replacing 4/4 and putting 2/4 and "time signature is chosen out of connivence not because it changes the music", I am talking about a context where interpretation is not a factor."

why? What relevance does it have? Were we talking about the importance of differentiating 2/4 and 4/4 in a theoretical but impossible situation that is defined by there not being any form of differentiation? Or in music-making? When referring to the significance of interpreting the relevance of a time-signature, I don't generally tend to be referring to impossible scenarios in which music is stripped of all dynamic and rhythmic inflection- that can only be realised with the aid of computers. Do you understand what circular logic is? If you create a scenario in which there is no possibility of inflection, obviously the difference between 2/4 and 4/4 would not be evident. However, such a scenario is neither possible, nor does it have any relevance to discussion of what time signatures is used to convey to the performer about the music. Do you remember that you said time signature should not affect the "music"? You cannot discuss time signatures with reference to what happens when you fail to reflect them and I have no idea why you are pretending that you had been doing so.

[mcdiddy1]

Your statement delt with counting and i just used an example that deals with how people count. it was not exactly what you were speaking about specifically just an alternative view of rhythm.

Why do you think composers made the decision to omit barlines? If anyone can could simply choose not to be influenced by them, what purpose would omitting them serve? Why would Satie feel a need to strip them from a piece that clearly exists in groups of 4 beats, if they meant nothing to performers? Don't side-step my question, please. Stop and think and then answer it.

Luckly I never side step question unless it has been answered before. I think that is an interesting question. My guess would be to your point to try not to influence the performer to stress on not stress particular notes based on previous musical conceptions. My thoughts are the music is played without barlines anyway so why get rid of them? I think the composer was trying to illustrate a philosophy of leaving behind the conventions of the past in order to create a unique and personal musical stance. Yes, the pulse still is there and the ideas are still and I do not feel it would make a difference to the actual performance of the piece. I would be interested in what the composer himself reasons are though.

Firstly, you actually think a human being can choose to strip ALL expression and interpretation from any execution? You think they can play every note at identical volume in perfectly mechanical timing- that is totally independent of NOTATED barlines and meter? You are grossly mistaken.

I don't think so. It would  be easier to prove than to say in word but it is easily possible. What you may be talking about  is melodic contour. Rather than going into a length post about expression, what i mean is notes that are higher tend to carry further and tend to sound louder naturally when all things are equal. This nature shape of melody could be viewed as "expression". However under a skill pianist, anything a computer can do, a pianist can emulate. If you created a recording one by a computer playing a simple tune and a real person playing the same tune, there would be no difference because the intensity and duration of the sound is under the complete control of the pianist. Although I have to say there are some pianos that can play with a great deal of expression based on imitating the touch of real pianist.

The example you gave is interesting and would be interested to hear it. However expression can be taken away from performance.  I think it is subjective to describe the degree of lack of expression but it can certainly be stripped away. Whether it will ever be completely stripped is questionable.  

Nobody has the means to avoid being influenced by the visual impressions of notation. Experienced performers (mostly) learn not to stop at barlines, although beginners almost always will.

I teach up to 30-40 students a week, many of are beginners and none of them constantly stop at bar lines unless they do not know something of course. It depends on how they are taught. If they learn by mastering one measure at  time then I could imagine they learn to stop at a bar line. But as a blanket statement about beginners this does not apply to every beginners. Even the young students, particularly when they come from a singing back ground where bar lines are not even discussed until they begin reading. Which "experienced performer" are you talking about stops at barlines? I wouldn't call them an experienced performer if they do not have that basic skill.

any advanced performers deliberately make an effort to read between the lines of what a composer's notation might reveal. They SEEK the subtle clues that a composer leaves. They realize that a composer was trying to influence them and look for signs that go beyond minim= 2 beats , etc.. If you honestly think there's a human in the world who can dispassionately read music purely in terms of notes and durations (and who can also execute that as coldly as a computer would) you are mistaken. Only a robot can fail to interpret.

I do agree with you that performers do seek to read between the lines to discover clues left by the composer. But mechanical, emotionless playing can easily be found through a quick search in youtube (although I would not put anyone's playing on as an example). The same way you can add elements to increase the emotion the same way you can take things out. Naturally as performers we subconsciously add emotion to our playing to where it becomes natural. But with increasing our  concentration and eliminating the subconscious naturally expressive playing we can return to the level where we first started.

That is why even beginners are often influenced by the difference between 2/4 and 4/4- as well as why better performers tend to be influenced in rather more sophisticated and positive ways.

What level of beginner are you talking about?

Someone who has been playing piano for some months or a 6 year old at their first piano lesson? Some beginners do not even understand time signature so changing it makes no difference to them. Many beginners do not even understand the concepts of downbeats and up beats and they would literally play like there is no difference. I have had some students even ask why would they put it in 2/4 instead of 4/4. Beginners will not know the difference unless their taught first.

[nyiregyhazi]

"My thoughts are the music is played without barlines anyway so why get rid of them? I think the composer was trying to illustrate a philosophy of leaving behind the conventions of the past in order to create a unique and personal musical stance. Yes, the pulse still is there and the ideas are still and I do not feel it would make a difference to the actual performance of the piece."

So why not include them as normal then, if it makes no difference either way? Sorry, but I don't think there's any stunt going on. I think the composers understood how much of an impact these things can have- even on the most experienced players.

"However under a skill pianist, anything a computer can do, a pianist can emulate. "

So record yourself playing a piece- just a simply nursery rhyme, in which every single note is played with an identical MIDI velocity. Just go and attempt it.



"The example you gave is interesting and would be interested to hear it. However expression can be taken away from performance. "

I didn't say it cannot be taken away. I said it cannot be eliminated altogether- in the sense of maintaining flawlessly perfect meter and zero dynamic variety. there is a key difference. You are talking as if anyone can just flick a switch that generates such an ability and provides total immunity to all but note lengths and pitches. It is not so. We are not computers and cannot function that way.

"But as a blanket statement about beginners this does not apply to every beginners. Even the young students, particularly when they come from a singing back ground where bar lines are not even discussed until they begin reading. Which "experienced performer" are you talking about stops at barlines?"

I've heard Arrau do it very badly in many works- including Chopin's E minor prelude. It makes sense that students are less likely to pause at bar lines if they already know the sound of melody. But at some stage every pianist has to be able to operate without having heard someone else give them the rhythm. Their conception of how it will sound has to come from the instructions on  the score. This is when the problem arises.

"I do agree with you that performers do seek to read between the lines to discover clues left by the composer. But mechanical, emotionless playing can easily be found through a quick search in youtube (although I would not put anyone's playing on as an example)."

We are not dealing in two possibility of either mechanical or not mechanical. There are degrees. Go to a digital piano and do as I described. Try to play a melody mechanically. Then remove all dynamics by changing the settings to equalize each volume. It's amazing how much more mechanical it is than anything you could ever reach.

"Some beginners do not even understand time signature so changing it makes no difference to them. Many beginners do not even understand the concepts of downbeats and up beats and they would literally play like there is no difference. I have had some students even ask why would they put it in 2/4 instead of 4/4. Beginners will not know the difference unless their taught first."

As I said, it's in the subconscious. The simple appearance of a physical barrier between two notes cannot fail to affect the perception to some degree. The more visible barriers, the more likely. That's presumably why even a famous artist like Arrau stumbled between bars. At such a level I really do find it staggering to hear such a basic error. Did he really think that the piece should be phrased bar by bar to reflect an ascending interval (despite the whole left hand being made up of descending intervals)? This basic psychological trap is the only explanation I can see for it.

Incidentally, while I used to think otherwise, I believe it's essential for beginners to be grounded in musical application of emphasis- just not senseless pounding of downbeats. For a time I was so caught up in looking for the bigger arcs, that my playing was without the most basic definitions. You have to learn to feel standard strong beats, before you can go on to truly understand the musical significance of the extreme unaccent. One thing I've found time after time is that in jazz pieces with accented offbeats, the student does best if they start by accenting every "ordinary" beat. Once they know where the reference points lie, they can transfer the emphasis elsewhere. Much as it pains me to hear kids with good technique banging downbeats mercilessly and unmusically (way after they should have been taught how to put together a real phrase), I think the soundest uprbringing of all involves full awareness of downbeats and ability to do light accentuation musically and unobtrusively. Without that, it can often result in a totally wayward sense of rhythm.

[mcdiddy1]

This doesn't disprove anything I said but rather supports your point about how 2/4 can communicate "characterization" and supports my point about developing an interpretation and writing in a time signature that is clear to the other audience. "

Not really, to be honest. It would only do so if there were some known reason why he had considered the bizarre 2/8 yet changed his mind. I know of no such evidence. Departure from the more ordinary to something more extraordinary conveys something. Failure to use the truly extraordinary 2/8 does not convey anything- unless prior intent to do so were to be established. If someone runs to work when they usually walk, that's interesting. However, the fact that they are running instead of hopping/crawling to work is not terribly revealing- unless there's a context that means you might have expected them to hop.

Well look at Beethoven's Final Sonata Opus 111 in the Arietta. He uses what we would consider truely "bizzare" time signatures 9/16, 6/16, and 12/32. I think this evidence that towards the end of his life he finally let go of the restrictions of Classical conventions and what pleases the public at the time and wrote in a more creative time signature. I wouldn't call this work  hopping or crawling in any sense.

It's messy to the point where I can barely make it out, but I'm not clear what you mean about the barlines. Which ones are missing? Also, do you presume that he wanted to printed version to be equally untidy? Messy writing does not particularly suggest to me that he was making a radical stand against the barline, that the published "corrected". I saw plenty of barlines there.

This is one of many examples where there it very difficult to see the bar lines. Yes, it so messy it is hard to even point out which measure they are missing but the point is barlines were an after though and he has a musical sound in his head that he labored to write down. He clearly agonized over the music the same way he probably agonized over the time signature he choose. I am not saying that he was against barlines which obvously he uses but that in terms of importance bar lines and time signature took a back seat to his musical ideas so everything comformed to what could best express them.

"Nope, because you assume all playing comes with an interpretation. Like I stated before beginners play without interpretation all the time so if beginners can do it"

This is an objectively fallacious statement. A beginner is incapable of doing no literally interpretation, just as a professional is. Go and record yourself playing a nursery rhyme with zero expression on a digital piano. Then try again with dynamics fully equalised.

Well more specifically beginners do not play without a good interpretation. You could make the argument that no interpretation is an interpretation. The degree of lack of emotion in music is subjective but it can severly taken away.

If you create a scenario in which there is no possibility of inflection, obviously the difference between 2/4 and 4/4 would not be evident. However, such a scenario is neither possible, nor does it have any relevance to discussion of what time signatures is used to convey to the performer about the music.

This is the heart of what i have been saying. You say it is impossible to play without an interpretation and i say it is possible to take away the elements that make an interpretation. While I agree it is impossible to play totally without an interpretation in the aspect that no interpretation is an interpretation it is certainly possible to eliminate changes in duration, articulation, phrasing and limit the dynamics enough to where the notes have no apperent connection to the other which i would consider a lack of a real interpretation

[nyiregyhazi]

"Well look at Beethoven's Final Sonata Opus 111 in the Arietta. He uses what we would consider truely "bizzare" time signatures 9/16, 6/16, and 12/32. I think this evidence that towards the end of his life he finally let go of the restrictions of Classical conventions and what pleases the public at the time and wrote in a more creative time signature. I wouldn't call this work  hopping or crawling in any sense."

Do you understand the difference between an exception and a trend? Failing to do something that might never have been anticipated is not a source of interest. DOING something unexpected is. This is really very simple logic. Why would using 2/4 over 2/8 in any way be remarkable? It's using it over the more probably 4/4 that contains significance. It is when a time signatures IS in some way unexpected that interest can be drawn. Not when it fails to be. I've repeated this over and over now. It's precisely because those time signatures are exceptional that they illustrate something of interest. In the analogy I made the point about hopping is that in being unprecedented it would be interesting- just like those time signatures! Remarkable things are only interesting in their presence- not in their absence.

"This is one of many examples where there it very difficult to see the bar lines. Yes, it so messy it is hard to even point out which measure they are missing but the point is barlines were an after though and he has a musical sound in his head that he labored to write down. "

He only decided to maintain a consistent time signature after having had the idea? You do not think that Beethoven felt any form of pulse whatsoever when having an idea? He just had a series of notes and lengths? Scrawly writing does not reflect indecision about whether to maintain a consistent time signature. It reflects scrawly writing. That is overwhelmingly speculative and in no way suggested by anything I saw there. I didn't see any missing barlines at all- although I saw one bar spread over two lines.


"I am not saying that he was against barlines which obvously he uses but that in terms of importance bar lines and time signature took a back seat to his musical ideas so everything comformed to what could best express them."

Quite possibly a lot of the time. Which would make it all the more significant when he makes use of 2/4 and throws in so many barlines. Do you follow this simple logic?

"While I agree it is impossible to play totally without an interpretation in the aspect that no interpretation is an interpretation it is certainly possible to eliminate changes in duration, articulation, phrasing and limit the dynamics enough to where the notes have no apperent connection to the other which i would consider a lack of a real interpretation"

I wouldn't call it "musical interpretation". But it remains a fact that it is not devoid of interpretation or various subconscious influences. Even the most monotonous playing contains far more information than a computer without interpretation.

Also, it's not about the fact that choosing to have no interpretation constitutes an interpretation in itself. It's about the fact that it's impossible to achieve no interpretation, without a computer.

[musicrachs]

Interpretation is nothing more than the performer trying to disrupt the composer's intention. Expression in music does not exist from the performers themselves but from how the music will sound like after the performer played what the composer wrote.

Music is about literacy (right notes, right rhythm and right intensity/velocity). Intensity/velocity is how we stress and soften each note. Music velocity numbers are used to help guide the performer where to stress and soften each note. If you look at the musicrachs website, you will see a picture of Fur Elise with suggested velocity numbers of where to stress and soften each note. You can then hear how it sounds. There are also paired recordings, one using music velocity rules (advanced velocity) and one without (standard velocity). A melody always begins with one note. The next note can be of 3 things: 1) louder, 2) softer, 3) the same. An example of a music velocity rule: you cannot soften 2 consecutive notes as this is the equivalent to mumbling in language. Also the audience in the back seat of the concert hall will not be able to hear you.

[scottmcc]

I should have known better than to post in this thread in the first place, as it started with semi-gibberish and only went downhill from there.  Seriously, do we need another anything fur Elise? Hasn't that dead horse been flogged enough?  What kind of ridiculousness is it to say you can't "soften" consecutive notes?  Haven't you ever seen diminuendi lasting several measures?  Didn't you ever practice scales crescendo up several octaves and diminuendo down?  Velocity rules?  What the crap are you talking about?  I may be living in a non-English-speaking country now, but it's still my native tongue and I haven't a clue what you're talking about. 

[nyiregyhazi]

Interpretation is nothing more than the performer trying to disrupt the composer's intention. Expression in music does not exist from the performers themselves but from how the music will sound like after the performer played what the composer wrote.

Music is about literacy (right notes, right rhythm and right intensity/velocity). Intensity/velocity is how we stress and soften each note. Music velocity numbers are used to help guide the performer where to stress and soften each note. If you look at the musicrachs website, you will see a picture of Fur Elise with suggested velocity numbers of where to stress and soften each note. You can then hear how it sounds. There are also paired recordings, one using music velocity rules (advanced velocity) and one without (standard velocity). A melody always begins with one note. The next note can be of 3 things: 1) louder, 2) softer, 3) the same. An example of a music velocity rule: you cannot soften 2 consecutive notes as this is the equivalent to mumbling in language. Also the audience in the back seat of the concert hall will not be able to hear you.

So the first paragraph gives us the old pseudo-humility that it's all about the composer and that nobody has any business interfering. Then the second explains that you are in a position to decide exactly what level each note should be played? You see no contradiction there. You're the lone prophet appointed by Beethoven, are you? It's everyone else whose way of playing is wrong?

Your suggestions are truly idiotic. You want more stress on the second off-beat semiquaver than on the bass note? I'm not habitually rude, but such a staggeringly foolish and poorly executed venture (coupled with such an arrogant attitude about what is "correct") deserves nothing but contempt. What kind of ignoramus would think the off-beat semi-quaver demands the most prominence in a "correct" musical execution?

I find the recording quite musical but it doesn't even faintly correspond with those seemingly random numbers. The second semiquaver is notably blended in- not more prominent than the bass. Also, the first beats of bars are not played at the same level, as marked. They are played at notably diffeent levels- as anyone should certainly hope for them to be. To play them identically would be totally unmusical. I'm actually rather surprised that someone could play that way, yet make such a woeful attempt to describe it. Is the performer really the same person who came up with that totally illogical and unmusical selection of intensities?

[pianowolfi]

I also find this use of numbers ridiculous, you can't measure soul and expression with numbers. It's certainly true that some musical traditions are relating to rhethorics, especially in the Baroque era. But there's no point in generalizing and measuring this living tradition and expression with stupid numbers.

[nyiregyhazi]

I also find this use of numbers ridiculous, you can't measure soul and expression with numbers. It's  certainly true that some musical traditions are relating to rhethorics, especially in the Baroque era. But there's no point in generalizing and measuring this living tradition and expression with stupid numbers.

I must say that I do find the concept potentially interesting- as an approximate guide rather than as "rule" about correct execution. I also like the idea of guidelines for the general nature of what works as musical expression- if not unbreakable rules. However, it's so poorly put into practise in that example, that the author does a damn good job of smearing the whole idea and making it look foolish. It's about as poor an advert for the idea as anything that could possibly have been produced.

[pianowolfi]

Anyway I'm not particuarly fond of approaches who can't get enough of finding parralels and correlations between language and music. Of course there are some, but if music lets itself get limited by language rules it will in all probability end up in pathetic slavery.

0:07-1:00

[nyiregyhazi]

Anyway I'm not particuarly fond of approaches who can't get enough of finding parralels and correlations between language and music. Of course there are some, but if music lets itself get limited by language rules it will in all probability end up in pathetic slavery.

0:07-1:00

For once, I agree with Barenboim. However, his point is altogether different. He's talking about music expressing something of its own that words cannot. That does not mean that music should not be properly articulated, just as words are. I agree with his point and also feel that music should almost always have some kind of "speaking quality". That's why we have the word "articulation" in music. Sadly, this is all too frequently restricted to following notated instructions for legato and staccato alone. It goes so far beyond that.


Only an idiot would make maintaining the analogy an end in itself. I don't think the good points of the analogy should be tarred by some tool who thinks that its wrong to ever get softer on two consecutive notes. Some things really should be regarded as verging on being viewed as "rules" (or at least be regarded as very strong but not unbreakable trends). For example the strong-weak on two note slurs is something that countless modern players are utterly deaf to. Listen to older recordings and you'll hear players who understood the musical sigh. These days, there are professional performers who sound like they've never even heard of the concept. Many people play as if the concept of a breath is unheard of. Of course, the musical art of singing can be used as a comparison. But even there many of the finest singers capture many of the inflections of emotional speech. The nature of singing is not entirely disconnected from speech. I'd far sooner sound like a speaker who characterises than a bland singer.

[pianowolfi]

Yes I am fully aware of elements like the musical sigh (I even use it sometimes in my own compositions) and of many more elements that language and music have in common, like the Greek rhythms (anapest, trochee, iamb etc), breath, cantabile and so on.

[musicrachs]

nyiregyhazi - these "staggeringly foolish and poorly executed venture " as you mentioned are rules that I learned from my professor in Russia. He would usually ask a student, which way do you like better, version A (without rules) or version b (with rules). Out of the 50 years of teaching, only 3 out of 3000 students did not like these rules in their playing (because they had no interest in music in the first place). When I first learned these rules, I thought that they were ridiculous too and totally foreign to me but when I heard the 2 versions, I actually liked it with the rules. Furthermore, these rules exist but are scattered and have never been compiled in any music book, which explains why music schools/conservatories have not taught it to the their students, which is why there have been mixed reactions from disbelief to curiosity to . I have found these rules of stressing used in the music of Haydn, Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert, Mendelsohnn, Scriabin, Prokovief, and even Van Halen. I have not found any for Mozart as he is an exception.

[nyiregyhazi]

"nyiregyhazi - these "staggeringly foolish and poorly executed venture " as you mentioned are rules that I learned from my professor in Russia. He would usually ask a student, which way do you like better, version A (without rules) or version b (with rules). Out of the 50 years of teaching, only 3 out of 3000 students did not like these rules in their playing (because they had no interest in music in the first place)."

Would you like to name this professor please? Stating that an anonymous person is from Russia does not boost their authority. Particularly if you consider that none of the most respected Russian artists that I know of are adverse to the idea of a diminuendo extending to 3 notes or more. I don't believe that diminuendos should always be progressively softer on every note, as a firm rule. However, I believe even less that it should be banned on any more than two notes. As I said, I rather like near (but not unbreakable rules)- but the single one you have listed to us is just about the stupidest and most inherently counter-musical "rule" I have ever heard. Here's the great Russian conductor Svetlanov playing the piano:

&feature=related

Note how, while he sometimes "arrives" slightly on the final note of the descending three note motif, he frequently treats it as an extended sigh from the top down. How tedious would it be if he always landed on the low-note on every occasion- due to some imaginary rule that Rachmaninoff's recordings illustrate he had not abided by either? Tell me, is your teacher as well known and respected as (the equally Russian) Svetlanov?  


"When I first learned these rules, I thought that they were ridiculous too and totally foreign to me but when I heard the 2 versions, I actually liked it with the rules."

You mean to say that you are not even the pianist? Please explain.  It's not the results in sound I object to. Of course the one with musical shape sounds better than the one with very little. It's the fact that you complained about performers interpreting- before being so truly foolish as to present your very own INTERPRETATION as being not only acceptable but somehow correct. Try portraying it as a suggested musical interpretation and learn some humility.

Also, if you're going to undertake such a venture, try coming up with something that vaguely reflects the results. The Fur Elise recording doesn't come close to those indications. Which rule tells you to emphasise the off-beat 2nd semiquaver? And why is it written in the score, yet played softer in the recording? Who wrote the score and who played? Is it the same person or not?  I find it very hard to believe that the pianist could possibly be the fool who came up with those numbers. They're not in the same ball-park, as the Americans say. Please explain.


"Furthermore, these rules exist but are scattered and have never been compiled in any music book,"

Put your delusions of grandeur aside and read Konrad Wolff's book on Schnabe's teaching, you ignorant tool. It contains far better insights than this bilge about diminuendos. The idea of seeking rules for interpretation is nothing new. Judging from your ludicrous suggestion to bring out a random off-beat dominant pedal note more than the tonic bass in Fur Elise, they have also been done a hell of a lot better than your own hopeless attempt. The playing of the pianist is rather musical. However, judging from the score and the one rule we've heard so far, the explanations need a LOT of work!!! If this is supposed to come across as a sincere venture (rather than the work of a charlatan) you need to drop the self-righteous tone and start coming up with something that actually corresponds with the recordings. 

[brogers70]

I think microdynamics is boring. All the cool pianists have gotten into nanodynamics.

[pianowolfi]

I have not found any for Mozart as he is an exception.

Hahaha I can't stop laughing! Of course he is an exception.
He would especially have been very amused about your number rules and he would have certainly written two ironic sentences (but certainly not more) about them, to his daddy, in one of his letters  

[keyboardclass]

Furthermore, these rules exist but are scattered and have never been compiled in any music book,

They have, in Türk (a few years too late for Mozart).  I believe www.archive.org may have his book - highly influencial in its day.