Ives - First Sonata for Piano

[John Ruggero]

The third 32nd note, the tied B natural might have been intended to be a 16th note tied to a 32nd note. Note the same rhythm at the end of the measure, and also in the next measure (circled):

Ives.png (81.46 KiB) Viewed 1304 times

If so, the notes would now be correctly positioned against the left hand. He didn't write a dotted 16th because he want to show the syncopated note tying over into the second 8th note of the measure.

One also wonders if the rhythm of the following two notes (5th and 6th in the OP), the 16th note G and and tied 32nd note B flat is correct. Might the two note values have been accidentally reversed and the G meant to be a 32nd note and the B flat an eighth tied to the following sixteenth? Then it would match the following three.

And the final rhythm in the second measure in the example above is not correct.

Perhaps the following was intended:

Ives 2.png (78.67 KiB) Viewed 1301 times

[Mr_Incognito]

4/12 time sig and no tuplet solve the problem.

4/12 would still require marking the tuplets. Would it not? A quarter note has the same rhythmic value in 4/4 and 4/12.

Not really, as the the quaver of the tuplet becomes the beat unit, and the crotchet is simply double.

[LSL2026]

@John Ruggero

The options from the other forum, for the first issue you posted were:

1. Metric Modulation using the = w/tuplet bracket - cleanest, and most obvious.

2. Changing the meter - 6/8 actually works and would totally be the “more common signature” but still a tempo relationship would need to be shown, so that takes us back to 1 above (and 3 below). 2/6 would be the correct meter otherwise, but people are not going to be familiar with that. I think that any meter change solution does not make the speed change clear and they’ll all still require a duration=duration indication, so yo might as well do 1. And none of them really capture the spirit of what’s going on.

3. A tempo change would also work, but again the math has to be calculated out, and with the existing marking, precise BPMs would be out of character as well.

So I mean, their solution was not a bad one given the options (Metric Modulation as we know it didn’t really exist or wasn’t widely known at the time) but I think the best way to show the intent is the MM.

Just thought I’d update you on what the responses were.

[sugarfree]

Following Brian Ferneyhough’s notation, you are correct. I just find combining beats and rhythmic values problematic. If time signature redefines a rhythmic value, why wouldn’t 4/4, 4/6, and 4/8 hold four quarters?

Screenshot 2026-07-20 at 11.11.31 AM.png (31.73 KiB) Viewed 1254 times

[LSL2026]

@sugarfree

I’m sorry, my brain just saw a few letters and I thought it was John who asked the initial question so you may not have read my posts - I suggested Metric Modulation and I asked for you on another forum where there was a consensus on a set of answers, most of which have been repeated here:

Metric Modulation - probably the cleanest, most understandable, and closest to the spirit of the original.

Meter change - there are a number of possibilities but 2/6 would be the clearest, yet it still would benefit from a = kind of notation, which means the Metric Modulation is already doing that and again, it’s a bit farther from the original.

Tempo shift is another option, but given the existing tempo markings, it would be the furthest from the original intent.

Best

[sugarfree]

thanks @LSL2026. What is the other forum you mentioned?

[dircknagy]

thanks @LSL2026. What is the other forum you mentioned?

Its a "Reddit" page frequented by a lot of beginning composers. Very few commenters there use their real names, but there is an incredible amount of extraordinarily long-winded information and misinformation there, so any "advice" one gets should be vetted very carefully.

You'll recognize @LSL2026's posts right away.

[OCTO]

Following Brian Ferneyhough’s notation, you are correct. I just find combining beats and rhythmic values problematic. If time signature redefines a rhythmic value, why wouldn’t 4/4, 4/6, and 4/8 hold four quarters?


Screenshot 2026-07-20 at 11.11.31 AM.png

Yes, but Brian uses Lisp* bracketing in order to achieve this easily.  Musicians don't use Lisp.

* i.e. PatchWork / OpenMusic / PWGL

[Mr_Incognito]

Following Brian Ferneyhough’s notation, you are correct. I just find combining beats and rhythmic values problematic. If time signature redefines a rhythmic value, why wouldn’t 4/4, 4/6, and 4/8 hold four quarters?


Screenshot 2026-07-20 at 11.11.31 AM.png

BTW where do you have time sigs from?

[sugarfree]

Following Brian Ferneyhough’s notation, you are correct. I just find combining beats and rhythmic values problematic. If time signature redefines a rhythmic value, why wouldn’t 4/4, 4/6, and 4/8 hold four quarters?


Screenshot 2026-07-20 at 11.11.31 AM.png

BTW where do you have time sigs from?

Dorico.