Klarinet Archive - Posting 000688.txt from 2004/10

From: "Matthew Lloyd" <matthew@-----.uk>
Subj: RE: [kl] Putting a beat to K. 622
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:02:49 -0400

Dan,

I started this idea of beat to K622. What I meant was some sort of heavy
"pop" thudding.

Obviously K622 has a beat.

I wasn't being serious - I couldn't imagine anyone deciding that adding
some sort of bass thud to K622 was anything other than sacrilege. I was
wrong.

Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: dnleeson [mailto:dnleeson@-----.net]
Sent: 23 October 2004 21:25
To: klarinet@-----. org
Subject: [kl] Putting a beat to K. 622

I'm very puzzled by the discussion about putting a beat to K.
622.

If the necessity exists to "put a beat" to K. 622, it must be
thought that the work is without such a thing. Clearly if, in the
mind of the person who did it, K. 622 needed a beat. Otherwise
why would s/he have done it?

Is one suggests that something "needs a beat" is that equivalent
to saying that the something "is without rhythm"?

Perhaps I am just not with it any longer, or else something
needing a beat means an entirely different thing.

Will someone help me shape my head right, please.

I'm not trying to be critical of the idea, just trying to
understand the difference between rhythm and something needing a
beat.

Dan Leeson
DNLeeson@-----.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org

--
This email has been verified as Virus free
Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org