On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Steven Smolian wrote:

> After all, true rhythm is seldom accurately
> reflected in music notation.

While I am in total agreement with you, I believe that many musicians
today would disagree, which is probably why I find performances today to
be so dull...another reason why I value those old performances.

I am reminded of one critic who, when reviewing my release of the Scriabin
rolls, took objection to rhythmic liberties Scriabin took with his own

> In addition, much is taken for granted.  Has anyone seen sheet music for
> rock that has a hard accent over the second beat?

Your statement reminded me of something one of my musicology professors
once said. We were discussing jazz charts at the time. My teacher stated,
"can you see it...think of some musicologist in the year 3,000. They
discover one of these charts. All of the recordings were lost in a huge
magnetic storm. One musicological paper after another is written to try to
determine how those sections marked 'ad lib' were performed. Reputations
are made and lost over the controversy...and in reality, they were rarely
done the same way twice." In a seminar the next semester, one of my
assignments was to find out how the "Haydn ornament" was to be performed.
I spent about an hour or so, every day for 3 months and couldn't find the
answer. I went back to my professor and asked him the answer. He said he
didn't know and had been spending a bit of his own time for the last five
years trying to find out the answer. Too bad we didn't have recordings
back in the time of Haydn.