Re: A note which is three measures long

[David Kastrup]

Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:

> On 01.09.2017 14:50, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham King <address@hidden> writes:
>>> On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 16:06 +0200, Simon Albrecht wrote:
>>>> On 31.08.2017 14:40, Bernhard Kleine wrote:
>>>>> At the end of the Kyrie from Palestrina's Missa Brevis there is a note
>>>>> three measure long. Is there any way to do that simply?
>>>> Yes, there is. However, that is actually a \maxima (with a duration of
>>>> 8*1)
>>> or even more, with "perfection" at the level of prolation, tempus, modus
>>> or (theoretically) maximodus.
>>> <snip>
>>>>   I always use Completion_heads_engraver and code the original
>>>> note values, instead of hard-coding any ties, in mensural music.
>>> +1
>> Actually, in mensural music I wouldn't think of using
>> Completion_heads_engraver.  It makes more sense removing the bar lines
>> from the measures and just leave them between the staves as reminder,
>> and not worry about splitting note lengths up.
>>
>> Mensural music tends to be a lot less beat-centric (and chord-centric)
>> than later music.
>
> I used to think that as well, and many people did, and do. For several
> reasons, I don’t anymore:
> 1) There’s the „notationskundliche“ (‘notationological’…) aspect,
> which I already summarized in this thread: Composers first wrote
> scores with barlines and ties on slates, then extracted parts (without
> barlines) and erased the score.

So?  Engineers use rulers for making technical drawings but that does
not mean that you need to glue the rulers to the page or that something
not drawn on checkered paper isn't a technical drawing.  Composer
tallying tools and execution scores are different things.

> 2) One can equally argue that, without barlines, performers have to
> think _more_, not less about the tactus, than if they were written.

Sure, until things fall into place.  But if you have a polyrhythmic
situation and a voice gets shifted by a quarter, you don't want to hack
its inherent rhythm into unrecognizable pieces just to make it better
sight-readable for musicians refusing to practise.  It loses its _inner_
structure in that manner.

> 3) IMO much 19th-century music is hardly different from much
> 16th-century music in that the real intrigue is in the suspense
> created by stresses against the tactus; if the tactus is not present
> at all, this suspense gets lost.

The "tactus" in mensural music is far less absolute.  If a theme is
shifted by a quarter note in a voice in mensural music and you hear it
without the others, the shift will be hardly if at all perceptible
because you _don't_ stress it "against the tactus" but rather keep its
place in reference to the other voices.  In 19th century music, the
metric relation will usually still hit you in the face, and that is
reflected in the notation.

> 4) It is an important virtue (for a large part of ‘classical’
> repertoire) to make the music not sound as if encaged in equal
> cages. So performers need to learn making music /in spite of/ the bar
> lines anyway.

It's not just the bar lines but also hacking durations into tied pieces
at _every_ metric division.  That makes it rather hard for the
executioner to bring out the _inner_ rhythmic and thematic structure
without hanging every note from the rigid meter.

-- 
David Kastrup