Re: GPD: official shortest note in lilypond

[Valentin Villenave]

2007/11/8, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden>:

> I'm a professional piano player by myself, and I've played most of the
> pieces you are mentioning.

I've read this whole thread since it has started, because I find the
main issue very interesting. It really, reallly would be a shame if it
had to go flaming.

My two cents here:

You guys are talking about different things. Each musical big period
has its own writing traditions (not to mention each composer's taste).
In 18th/19th century music, 128th and 256th notes weren't rare indeed;
it doesn't mean people are still writing this way today.

Let me take another example: the accidentals. as you may know, 19th
century composers liked flats much more than sharps; in contemporary
music, statistics show that you are much more likely to find sharp
than flats. Does it mean flats and double flats are evil? Of course
not. Habits just change.

One thing is very interesting though: when it comes to finding 256th
notes, you always refer to *solo* pieces (piano sonatas, violon
pieces, etc.). Why is that? It is because when writing orchestral
music, composers always tend to make things more "basic" for
musicians, so that everybody can play together whithout being
disturbed by complex notations.

In every orchestration class (at least the ones I attended to),
students are always taught to prefer simple, basic meters to more
complex time signatures: I sometimes had to write orchestral versions
of Beethoven sonatas movements, and I outrageously replaced 3/8 with
3/4 so that orchestral parts could get more understandable by
musicians (besides, when attending to an orchestration class, you know
that if what you're writing is ever played, it will be by pupils).

In a same way, I once orchestrated a C-flat Chopin piece... in a B
natural key! It's a shame, ok, I'll never pretend otherwise, but just
try to make a bunch of (unexperienced) violinists play a C-flat scale,
and then will talk about it again :)

Like you Werner, I'm a pianist, and as a soloist I'm used to read and
play 256th notes. But as a composer, I always tend -- like you
probably do -- to aim for the most simple writing, and my dream is to
write music that is both interesting and easy to read.

Besides, Beethoven's harmonical structures and language look more
familiar to us than contemporary languages, so putting *very
complicated* rhythms in *very complex* chords, scales and harmonies,
would just be adding complexity to complexity.

I'm very respectful with Mark's Ferneyhough example, but I can't say
this is the kind of music I want to write, especially in ensemble
music. As a soloist instrumentist, I'd be thrilled to play it, but I
know it would take me weeks to understand and learn the rhythmic
structure. I just can't afford to require musicians who would play
*my* music to take such time and efforts.

So, writing 256th notes is absolutely not evil. I deeply regret that
Thomas has taken it this way. But nevertheless, such rhythms are not
always enjoyed by musicians, and for a humble young composer, writing
like Beethoven would not only be a total anachronism, but also a bad
habit.

Sory for having been this long.

Best Regards,
Valentin