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.