Klarinet Archive - Posting 000234.txt from 2000/11

From: David Glenn <notestaff@-----.de>
Subj: Re: [kl] Decrescendo v Diminuendo
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 12:48:38 -0500

Tony Wakefield wrote:

> I have never seen an Italian publication which uses the term "decrescendo".
> I have never seen any worthwhile publication which uses that term. When
> there is a much more logical and attractive word to use, I think it is
> obscene we do not. I have seen lots of American big band jazz printed pub.
> where it is used. If you think of the pressures of sight reading,
> "decrescendo" <looks> a lot like "crescendo" and could, in a moment of
> "deconcentration" be slightly misconstrued. The dictionaries only include it
> because they also include 1000`s of new and corrupt terms which we have
> become used to. Notice I didn`t say "gotten" used to! Would any reasonable
> publisher & musician use the phrase "soft" or "loud" when preparing a
> printed part? Why not then use verbally what we do see in print form.
> Exceptions are of course do take place in the rehearsal room, when the
> conductor has to BELLOW several alternatives at musicians who haven`t got
> the point.
> I say we should all use the correct terminology what got us to get some
> meaning into know wot I mean and get us all to mean what we got. Get me?
> Tony W.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I never liked "decrescendo" either - aside from the fact that it takes more
effort than crescendo to do ;-) but I never got so heated up about it. Am I
therefor a language junky?

By the way, "gotten" is correct American. Aren't we barbarians? (grin)

David

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org