Meter: the Postclassical Paradigm

Just getting around to reading the far back issues of your blog but this was such a pleasant and familiar topic and so inspiring to me that I had to write something. I used to write a lot of meters with fractional bits - you know, 4 1/2 beats of 4 for example - which seemed to be the correct notation for the music. It was supposed to sound like a little bit was dropped off the end - of a normal 5/4 measure in the above case - but I couldn't get conductors to beat it that way, even though it seemed really straightforward to me. They all wanted to make it 2/8 + 2/8 + 2/8 + 3/8, which is of course the same length but hardly the same feel. I think the hiccuping rhythms in the Concord Sonata may have been the first place that made me think about using such things, but didn't Led Zeppelin take these kind of rhythms to the masses in the 70s? In what universe did these people all grow up? And why have I allowed them to browbeat me into their way of thinking? On this day, I take a solemn vow to subjugate myself no longer!

To add to the Schiff example, I recently got a CD with Stokowski's c.1948 recording of "Sensemaya" by Silvestre Revueltas. If my ear is correct, Revueltas' 7/8 meter is turned into 4/4 for much of the piece with the addition of an extra eighth note per measure. Stokowski then tries to cover this up by taking the piece at the speed of light so that the difference between 7/8 and 4/4 (8/8) is only a fraction of a second. (His solution to the "problem" of the alternating 7/8 and 7/16 meters in the second section of the piece is also pretty funny.)

This reminds me of an incident from high school band days. We were rehearsing a piece that was in 7/8 and to "help" us, the director called out the counts "one-two-three-four-five-six-sev-en" (ie 8/8) and got quite upset that many of us were'nt following him. With regards to Schiff, I think that it help prove my theory that most western Europeans are rhythmically challenged. I think a class in Bulgarian dance should be a requirement for all performance majors, so they can get a feel for "Aksak" rhythms!

It's an interesting problem, and I suppose one we all struggle with to one degree or another. Personally, if I have to choose between making the meaning clear to the performer and making the music sight-readable, I will opt for the latter, figuring that meaning will make itself apparent if the notes are played correctly.

But the example you give of Schiff's distortions -- that's inexcusable. In fact, all three examples you give here (janacek, your student, Desert Sonata) should be easily graspable by experienced performers.

Making the meaning of the music clear to the performer is the absolute top criterion, without exception.

Just to play devil's advocate here. When you notate your compositions, do you notate for the performer's ease, or the composer/musicologist's ease? I always opt for the performer's, since I'd rather make it easier for the them and have a good performance, than a score that makes it easier for analysis. Of course, since most of my pieces have staggered entrances, the meter doesn't make all that much difference anyway. I also find that using phrase markings over a number of measures works better for most musicians than tricky meters, with the side benefit that beat duration isn't altered so readily that way.