| David |
08-10-2006 11:28 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peestie
Oh, I'm not saying it's some good playing. The rhythms aren't exactly "standard" which is bound to make it tricky enough, but I was just saying it isn't that fast. I don't really want to get into any arguments, so I'll maybe conceed defeat :p
|
I don't think it's a question of arguing or of conceding defeat. "Fast" isn't an absolute. It's a relative. I was just playing this solo on the piano last night. To me, it's fast. To you, perhaps not.
Quote:
P.S. David, why does no-one on the internet give note durations their proper names? I never see people use "quaver", "minum" etc. It's always 8th notes and 1/2 notes. Why? As a classically trained musician I'd always been taught the proper names and had never heard "8th notes" until I started reading music related things on the 'net. Is it just for brevity, or is there another reason? Just wondering if you can shed some light on this because I've been wondering about it for ages.
|
According to my Harvard Dictionary of Music, published in 1960, "whole note," "half note," "quarter note," "eighth note," "sixteenth note" & "thirty-second note" are the correct American terms, whereas "semibreve," "minim," "crotchet," "quaver," "semiquaver" & "demisemiquaver" are the correct terms in English-speaking Europe.
My classical training in piano encompassed study with Barbara Edmundson of Juillard, Blanche Nissim (a student of Ralph Berkowitz & Josef Hoffmann) of the Curtis Institute, & Janet Vrudny of the Idyllwild School of Music & the Arts, an afiliate of the University of Southern California School of Music. The American terminology in my training was far more prevalent than the European terminology. I think it would be perfectly legitimate for us here in this country to regard "quarter note," "half note," "eighth note," etc., as the accurate, correct terminology--at least for us. Of course, we haven't switched over to metric yet, either. :lol: |
