I've Got The Rubato Fermata Time Signature Blues

[TheFiveCount]

Accuracy versus Readability

Is it acceptable to write scores where the time signature varies a lot- like 3 or 4 measures of 4/4, then some measures of 6/4 or 7/4 and back to 4/4?

Many of my compositions begin as improvisations on my keyboard. I record the MIDI data generated by my keyboard using SONAR 4 and then flesh out these improvisations in SONAR using a variety of VST plugins for the strings, brass, woodwind, etc. and generate the finished audio track.

I then input the MIDI file to Sibelius 5 to clean up and properly notate the musical score. Since I have initially played the parts of the score, the phrasing and timing is exactly the way I want the music to be performed by others (which is an impossible expectation). This, of course, leads to problems in notation.

Rubato sections of the score can be notated and verbage added to suggest that the performer do this or that, but pauses give me the most problems. Fermatas and similar time modifiers (like lunga, breve, caesura, L.P., G.P. and comma) give an indication that notes should be held longer or shorter but in computer generated score playback, fermatas are fixed time values and real performances are not fixed.

As a result, the only way I have found to notate tempo accurately is to vary the time signature. Of course, this leads to reading problems for the performers when the time signature is altering every other measure on an irregular basis. I would expect a competent performer to be able to count and figure out why the time signature is this way, but should I just notate using fermatas and their like and hope for the best?

Any thoughts on this subject would be greatly appreciated

Thanks-
Richard

[ttw]

It's not particularly a problem. Just make things as easy to read as possible.

[chckn8r]

Originally Posted by TheFiveCount

Is it acceptable to write scores where the time signature varies a lot- like 3 or 4 measures of 4/4, then some measures of 6/4 or 7/4 and back to 4/4?

Yes, it's done all the time - especially in music scored for film/TV as the composer needs to drop/add beats (as well as adjust tempos) to fit the music to the video edit.

Originally Posted by TheFiveCount

Rubato sections of the score can be notated and verbage added to suggest that the performer do this or that, but pauses give me the most problems. Fermatas and similar time modifiers (like lunga, breve, caesura, L.P., G.P. and comma) give an indication that notes should be held longer or shorter but in computer generated score playback, fermatas are fixed time values and real performances are not fixed.

As a result, the only way I have found to notate tempo accurately is to vary the time signature. Of course, this leads to reading problems for the performers when the time signature is altering every other measure on an irregular basis. I would expect a competent performer to be able to count and figure out why the time signature is this way, but should I just notate using fermatas and their like and hope for the best?

I think you need to separate notational application playback and live performance needs. You unfortunately can't do both accurately in your situation. I always make things logical and easiest for the performer if that's the final intent of my piece - keeping the music as readable as possible. Yes, a competent performer will be able to count and jump through hoops that are written, but you then get all their attention on the technical aspects of the score and not the artistic. I'd write things out in standard time signatures and indicate performance enhancements such as rubato and fermatas adding any extra verbiage that's needed...

If I have a performer or ensemble playing my music, then I trust and enjoy their unique musicality that they bring to the piece. If that's not an option for you, then I wouldn't bother scoring for performance and just concentrate on making the sequence work for you "in the box".

D

[stevel]

Is it acceptable to write scores where the time signature varies a lot- like 3 or 4 measures of 4/4, then some measures of 6/4 or 7/4 and back to 4/4?

Yes. Although, in some cases it might be better to group things into larger units - i.e., instead of alternating 3/4 4/4, it would be better to put 7/4 and just beam to show the division of the measure (or use a dotted "mid"-measure barline). You can also do 3+4 over 7, but I think those can get a little fussy visually speaking. But what you mention above really isn't that bad. Though I should warn that if you have 6/4 and 7/4. make sure they can't be broken down to 4/4 and 3/4 because then, I'd err on the side of having less different signatures - I'm a consistency type. And obviously, if the music demands it, then you should honor that. One note: please, for God's sake, don't put "C" for 4/4 - nothing looks more stupid to me than 3/4 - 5/4 - C - 5/4 - 2/4 - 3/4 - C - 6/4 - C - 3/4, etc. My consistency curse says "writing out" 4/4 looks better :-)

but should I just notate using fermatas and their like and hope for the best?

I understand your desire to do the fluctuating meter thing Richard. But I have to say, musician's don't necessarily equate Meter with "length" - I mean, putting a whole note int a measure of 4/4 followed by a Whole note tied to a 16th note in a measure of 17/16 just to make the note "exactly" one 16th longer is a bit finicky - some modern types do this, but live players - not so much. In fact, you could probably time them and if the tempo was slow, there'd be so much variation it would be ridiculous. On the other hand, Fermati and the like are put in for "interpretation". So they're always going to be variable.

I'm to the point where, a lot of time simply putting in "slightly longer" or "much longer" etc. are as feasible as anything. It's kind of like the pop music indication of "lazy 8th" for something a musician plays that's really hard to pin down as a strict rhythmic value - they're basically just ignoring the tempo and playing out of time. So how do you notate that?

So I think it ultimately depends on how specific you want to be. I will say, I think the best thing for you to do is to do the score both ways and get some people to perform it and see what you get! If the "interpretive" ones are close enough, great. If you get a mad variety of interpretations, and the more precisely notated ones do the job, then there's your answer.

HTH,
Steve

[TheFiveCount]

Thanks for the replies- it good food for thought. My wife is a piano teacher and suggests that I don't even write slurs, pedal, and phrase marks into my piano scores. She says it scares the less mature students into thinking the piece is harder to play than it really is, and she says most music she buys for her students comes with a CD so the students can hear how the piece should go. Interesting, as the marks are there to make the music easier to play!

I think the suggestion of writing out two different scores is the best way to go as it has more flexibility. I had to laugh at Steve's comment about using 'C' in place of 4/4. I had never thought of doing that and he's right- it would drive me crazy -.

I write for the fun of it and have never had my works performed by others but some day that might happen, and I would prefer my scores to be accurate but not overwhelmingly so.

Thanks-
Richard

[Thorolf]

I suggest this is really a philosophical question: Where does the composition end and the performance start? Answer: Whereever you want to draw the line! If you want it exactly your way, it’s easy: Record and perfom your music exclusively yourself! It’s no disgrace: 99 % of all the club music composed out there is never committed to notation at all. And think of loads of folk musicians and singer/songwriters.

Why should you want somebody else to play your music at all? If all you do is equally important for the work of art to be what you intended, you should be recording it anyway, and let your performer use your performance as a reference. But then again, why not play it yourself?

But if you really want to have someone else perform, why is that? Where is the creative opportunity for the performer? This is really the question you should be answering to yourself. I have had this conversation with myself a zillion times, and the conclusion is always: It’s ok for some things to be open, but not other things. Actually notating music is formulating to the performer what you think is important to the music. It’s a huge task, as you need a lot of experience on what it is like to be a musician to be able to do the right choices here.

This is why I tend to always wait to the last minute with writing my works down, so I can draw on an even larger and more mature bank of experience on everything about notation.



Regards

[stevel]

Originally Posted by TheFiveCount

I write for the fun of it and have never had my works performed by others but some day that might happen, and I would prefer my scores to be accurate but not overwhelmingly so.

Richard, since your wife is a piano teacher, you should try to write some pieces for her students to play. Especially popular with younger students are "themed" works - sports themes, video games/fantasy themes, holiday themes (especially if there's a dearth, unlike Christmas).

I too would rather them be accurate, but we always have to understand they will be subject to artist interpretation. I kind of see your wife's point about it "scaring off" students, but - and while you say it makes it easier with the markings - they really don't, but they do add a level of dimension that, no offense, your wife should probably be teaching from the git go. I know some teachers whose students play 3 note pieces (using only three pitches that is) with dynamics, phrasing, articulation - the whole nine yards, with only three fingers and they sound great. Sure it's only three notes but the emotion, and what seems like a mature understanding is there. Yes getting the right notes is important, but those other factors (assuming they're requested in the piece or typical of the style) is important as well. I too have tried this, learn the notes, then get the dynamics, then get the phrasing, then get the... but I find this approach a little impractical because it usually makes the students place undue emphasis on the notes, and forget about the other aspects of musical performance. So, something to consider - but if it's working for her, I wouldn't change :-). However, for you, I would go ahead and write slurs and articulations and dynamics and such - I mean it's not really asking for all that much as those markings are a typical part of the language. We might compare them to punctuation - sure you can read the words but not knowing whether the sentence is a question or exclamation can change how someone reads it. - Knowing your notes is fine but not playing an important fortissimo doesn't really get the point across either. And question marks aren't really that much outside of the typical language, are they?

Your idea of making two versions is a sound one - simplified, then marked up. And, especially if your wife does teach using this "additive" method, they could learn your unmarked version first then go back to the marked up version - in fact, teaching in that style really needs that kind of thing, which isn't really supported by the typical repertoire, so you might be onto something here!

best,
Steve

[TheFiveCount]

Hi Steve and all.
I just posted a couple of my compositions here in the Solo/Duo Works area. If you look at the sheet music and listen to the music as performed by me, you can see why I fuss so much with this problem.

Just a note- I only had two weeks of Music Theory in college before being tossed out of the class by the professor. Seems I shouldn't have corrected him in class. See what being young and immature does for you? That was 42 years ago, so I haven't had any formal training. That's why I was so glad to find a forum like this- I need all the help I can get!

Thanks-
Richard

[reith]

The real lessons come when you have to prepare and rehearse an orchestra, particularly if it isn't 100% professional. If you're in that situation, you soon find that changes from something-over-4 to something-over-8 or worse like 4/4 to 7/8 (unless the change is regular) try you out as a conductor. If musicians have many rests in varying time sigs, write plenty of cues in the parts.

I usually start without bar lines/time sigs to see how the rhythms and phrasing pan out then add them later. As Chickn8r says, with film music it becomes a pain when the spotting is very precise and has to fit lots of cuts.

[TheFiveCount]

Originally Posted by reith

The real lessons come when you have to prepare and rehearse an orchestra, particularly if it isn't 100% professional. If you're in that situation, you soon find that changes from something-over-4 to something-over-8 or worse like 4/4 to 7/8 (unless the change is regular) try you out as a conductor

I understand those problems in reading and agree. However, almost all of the odd meter I write is in the same meter: 4/4 to some 7/4 measures and such. I change the time signature to fill out what I want the fermata to really sound like so as to capture the phrase correctly. I know this is subjective, but that's the way I like it.

One of the things I enjoy doing is to write parts where the different instruments play in different time signatures (or different accents) but when you count it all out, all the different parts resolve to 4/4 or more often, 6/8. I guess this comes from playing in jazz quartets in my youth.

Richard