Quote:
Originally Posted by mistertomlinson
My point of the tattoo is not for anyone to read and play it, but for it to be the accurate graphical representation of the music.
|
I wouldn't beat this dead horse any further, except you seem to still be trying to make up your mind.
Couple things: Which is more meaningful, a score that can be read by a musician? Or one that can only be played back by a computer?
Would you feel the same way about words? That it doesn't matter if anyone cann read them or not?
Also, the only difference between all three of these ornaments is -- James Hetfields somewhat ham-fisted technique. I hear what you hear, the rhythm isn't exactly an even triplet, two notes
are a little rushed. I'm not convinced the variation is intentional though. And it not consistent every time -- it couldn't be, not at this level of detail. To take it to the extreme: if you really wanted to follow through on accuracy, you would have to write out all 16 bars without repeats, and notate the ornament twice to get the rhythmic variation EXACTLY right BOTH times. Kind of ridiculous, IMO.
I think Jon's example 1 is the best compromise. It's written as a readable, classical-style ornament. It's clear, comprehensible, and it
does express the uneven rhythm -- with more than enough accuracy, IMO.