30 April 2013

Musings on ... et malum

Whether I am actually content with the third movement as is, or whether my brain is just resting, and magnetically repelling any evaluative thought on the matter, I do not find myself thinking of any musical alteration at this point.
There are (at the least) some notational emendations to see to;  even in addressing these, though, waiting to hear from organists to see how a certain marking would be received.
Probably the ‘most daring’ aspect to the notation in the third movement, is the beaming across bar-lines.  My idea was to make the motivic cells clear; my concern is whether an organist will find this metrically distracting.  My working hypothesis is, that some organists will find it a distraction, and others won’t;  so I suppose I am waiting to see if an early indication of consensus justifies leaving it as notated.
(While I was sketching on paper, I wondered if the cross-beaming would be a nuisance to realize in Sibelius; but in fact, it was wondrously easy . . . I don’t like to think what a dogsbody spot of work it would have been in Finale.)
Singing in a choral concert to-night of Holst (a couple of delicious Rig Veda choruses), Vaughan Williams (the five Mystical Songs) and Britten (the Hymn to St Peter) . . . assorted lesser oddments, as well.


Cato said...

True: some organists will complain, others will not. Cross-beaming is not something from Ferneyhough! :)

Karl Henning said...

Of course, I have one organist friend who would complain that the music is not (a) in 4/4, (b) whole-notes, and (c) marked Largo : )

Cato said...

Sounds more like an o^o^o^o^o^o^rganist!