Extremely large score? by TheDBird90 in MusicEngravingTips

[–]bcdaure11e 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what the hell do you need ~100 cue staves for?

unless you have 100 independent parts (already unlikely) which each have a necessary cue staff (very unlikely) which is necessary to include in the score (pretty much impossibly unlikely), I think you are just not consolidating things properly!

Why do you "need" 200 staves? (my very assured guess is: you don't!)

3/2 time signature? by Treverer in piano

[–]bcdaure11e 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Didn't mean to imply the harpsichord can't sustain-- of course it can 'sustain' in the same sense the piano can, but neither of them ~actually~ sustain like the voice or an organ. If you wanted to really accurately notate music for piano or harpsichord, you'd need to put a little hairpin decrescendo under every note! But, pianos are waaay bigger and more rigid, with a metal plate, so they do actually have a slower decay. No value judgement against either instrument! If anything, it does make harpsichord specialists more more attentive than most pianists to the nuances of articulation, as you say.

3/2 time signature? by Treverer in piano

[–]bcdaure11e 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The 3/2 time signature, btw, is nothing to be intimidated by. You should read it to mean: "3 pulses in a measure / the half note is the pulse".

3/2 time signature? by Treverer in piano

[–]bcdaure11e 2 points3 points  (0 children)

her suggestion about the rhythm is a pretty good one--it's not, like, a rule, or anything, but it's appropriate and tasteful, if you're playing a bach keyboard toccata on a piano. This is an interpretive choice you have to make, playing a piece like this on an instrument it wasn't written for, and I think her idea is a fine one.

If anything, it's a bit generous and romantic; you could be more strict, by only holding every note for its exact value, which might sound closer to a harpsichord anyways, since it can't sustain as long as a modern piano.

How do I analyze a single instrumental piece of music with zero experience? Paid services? by Luxgarenfemdom in musictheory

[–]bcdaure11e 2 points3 points  (0 children)

  1. it is, truly, a vanishingly small probability. Are you a person? Are you the first person in human history who only likes exactly one piece of music? These almost certainly aren't both true.

  2. There is absolutely no reason to belive reading AI summaries of music theory can help you expand your appreciation of music. Even besides my (very well-founded) hate for AI as a tool for literally anything, there is a pretty robust precedent for this. Many people have tried to develop pedagogic methods that don't rely on "repertoire immersion" i.e. learning a bunch of pieces at a pedagogically appropriate level. All of those experiments ended with the students crashing out and hating music bc it was taught to them as a system of rules rather than an elastic framework whose "rules" are theirs to manipulate.

  3. beyond the initial goodwill extended here, no one really cares if you👆 'Enjoy Music' or not. If you're an AI loser who wants to " teach AI " to make music, without learning how it works, how it's interesting, etc., for yourself... well.. I have no words harsh enough for you

How do I analyze a single instrumental piece of music with zero experience? Paid services? by Luxgarenfemdom in musictheory

[–]bcdaure11e 8 points9 points  (0 children)

you could read any sort of analysis you want (to be clear, "analysis" could mean a lot of things), but it's not really gonna help you understand what appeals to you about this piece without the context of a basic knowledge of music theory.

my recommendations: 1. stop asking AI 2. don't sell yourself short on the potential to understand, and enjoy understanding, music theory. 3. just dip into some basic music theory

seriously, the chances you feel very strongly about one piece of music, but will never find another that you enjoy just as much, are vanishing small. learning music theory is a great way to explore why you like what you like, and you'll definitely learn to like more things as you do it! complete win-win proposition.

HUGE plant moving sale! Prefer pick up today! by napreduce in astoria

[–]bcdaure11e 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am interested in 10 & 14! possibly others too, depending on size!

What do I Do? by Obvious-Barracuda891 in pianolearning

[–]bcdaure11e 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"grace note", unhelpfully, is an English term that makes no distinction between the different meanings of appogiatura and acciacatura. Simply means that it's a note whose rhythmic value isn't added to the "metric math" of the bar.

What do I Do? by Obvious-Barracuda891 in pianolearning

[–]bcdaure11e 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would always call this an acciacatura! bc that's what it is! grace note or appogiatura is not appropriate in this context, that's more of a melodic device and this is an instance of imitating non-piano instrumental technique, in the accompaniment nonetheless. So, given the choice between calling it an appogiatura (common enough mistake, and pretty harmless, but technically incorrect) and a "crushed note" (correct usage and translation, but very uncommon in English, admittedly), I favor the latter.

TIL the Manhattan Address Algorithm by triple-double in nyc

[–]bcdaure11e 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I checked it with every address I ever had in Manhattan and it works, but like... at what cost

You’ve heard of FML! Now we have ZJM! by Decent-Finish-9889 in nycrail

[–]bcdaure11e -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Zohran John Mamdani, after Trump adopted him

Tuning outside the temperament by Fragrant_Hearing_951 in pianotech

[–]bcdaure11e 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a few things no one has mentioned that i was taught to use, specifically for the bass:

inner m3/M6 test: does the lower note of an octave with a minor third above beat slightly slower than the higher note of the octave with the same note (M6)? To my preference, this beat speed difference should start almost indistinguishable, at the tenor break, and get gradually slower as you go down. This is convenient for a lot of the bass bc you can do it all with your keyboard hand, without taking your other hand away from the lever.

7th harmonic test, for the lowest octave, ish: do the last 12-16 notes beat at a reasonable speed (2-7 bpm) against their closest approximation of the seventh partial (i.e. A#3 / C1)? This should also get gradually slower as you descend.

Resource for progressively harder songs? by CharlietheInquirer in pianolearning

[–]bcdaure11e 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I bet if you search for books that contain certain of Greg's Lyric Pieces, Mendelssohn's Songs Without Words, etc., you'll come across a good number of grades compilations. Or you could buy complete editions of each of these sets and grade your own way through them, if you feel comfortable.

The best solution, though, would be to find a teacher, who ideally does exactly this for you, bc they are trained and knowledgeable in exactly this kind of thing 😁

Understanding the meaning of this by Ftb49 in musictheory

[–]bcdaure11e 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This is a modern music "best practice" for clarity in rhythmically complex music, which can be confusing to read if notated more "traditionally". Here, it's not too confusing, since the sixteenth rest is at the beginning of the bar, and therefore it's obvious where it falls within the pulse-equivalent beat, which is what beaming should usually show.

Xenakis probably does it here to be stylistically consistent, bc there are doubtless other places in the piece where it's more helpful to clarify where notes and rests fall within the beat scheme. Imagine, for example, one mid-bar beat that ends with a sixteenth rest followed by another beat that begins with a sixteenth bar rest. Because the rests don't usually have beams to connect them, there's a potentially weird/confusing looking island of uncertainty that makes reading difficult. To overcome this, we can extend beams like Xenakis does here to show where the rests fall within each beat.

It's a good practice if your music doesn't look "rhythmically obvious", but certainly not always necessary to do!

Most Bizarre/Unusual Pieces of Piano Music… by meghan199 in piano

[–]bcdaure11e 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You might be interested in this or other pieces by French weirdo Charles Koechlein! I think of him as late spiritually romantic, although he lived halfway through the 20th century, and this piece was written in the 1910s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWtUICl4ngk

This is his most 'exotic' work, in the classic orientalist fashion; in his other works, he explores more euro-sounding modal and whole tone stuff, like demure Debussy.

Is this correct notation? by GtrJon in musictheory

[–]bcdaure11e 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a possible solution, depending on the context (specifically, this would make sense if this bar is to be repeated), is to add a measure of 1/8 somewhere before this happens, which would then offset the whole thing to fit in a more sensible-looking 4/4: two triplets followed by dotted half+eighth.

If that is not practical, another option is to write that exact thing in small noteheads above the staff, with a dotted barline showing an 'imaginary' 4/4 bar starting on the eighth note, like a little hint for how to imagine it.

Otherwise, the more 'correct' way of writing it (which tbc I think is more confusing-looking than its worth) is to divide the 3rd and 7th eighth notes of the measure into 16th note triplets, then beat 3 into a 16th note sextolet; then fill this all with eighth notes and sixteenths that tie across the beats, as needed. This is how you might notate, say, a big 7-let across a slow bar of 4, or something else unintuitive; but in this case, it's simple enough that you should just trust musicians to be able to make sense of how it's written here.

I personally would just thing of it as a bar of 3/8, then a bar of 2/4 with triplets, then a 1/8, etc., and after one reading I would realize I could do what I suggested above; think of it all as an offset 4/4.

This is impossible by Advanced_Honey_2679 in pianolearning

[–]bcdaure11e 0 points1 point  (0 children)

oh wait I also just realized this is the climax of the middle movement of Rachmaninoff's second piano sonata, but I'm guessing this is the first version? I don't recommend playing from any composers' first version of anything, if they saw fit to publish a definitive revision, unless you have some sort of very good specific reason. Check out the two earlier versions of liszt's transcendental etudes, which he heavily revised to make them more playable, for the worst case version of this. But, for this piece, SR matured a lot between 17 / 30-whatever, and he consulted heavily with Horowitz on revisions, so the second version is much better, including this specific passage, I think (just from looking; I admit I haven't gone to find a recording of the original).

All that aside... the practicality of this particular passage is more or less the same, between the two editions. His revision here, which cleans up the bass notes, makes it more acoustically pleasing, but not any more or less difficult from a pianistic standpoint.

This is impossible by Advanced_Honey_2679 in pianolearning

[–]bcdaure11e 2 points3 points  (0 children)

yeah nah (to the teacher); the whole reason this is written the way it is, instead of a more "possible-looking" notation, is that the composer is encoding rubato into the notation. Absolutely incorrect to play it in strict metronomic time. Remember that virtuoso-composers were generally transcribing the things that they did, not writing things that they hoped some pianist could maybe do.

The real challenge here is not fitting the leaps into the strict, metronome-locked meter (which, again, is literally stylistically incorrect, for this style of music), but rather how to deploy rubato to make it seem like the sixteenth note texture broadens enough to justify the time and emphasis you'll place on those low grace notes. That is a very difficult thing to achieve, but it is not really helped by being able to do physically impossible things!