To violinist Elizabeth Field: I have become fascinated with historically informed practice in the last few months, and I have been taking a more creative approach to notation as a result. I recently purchased Performing the Score. In this excellent video you make a comment about passages with a reiterated note - I think it was a Vivaldi piece. You gave it a French name that sounded like bar elage, but I think I misheard it. What is the correct name? Also I'd love to hear your response to an observation: in the Mozart sonata you often play uneven 16th notes in a purposeful manner - i.e., obviously for expressive reasons. I understand that the French practice was something akin to swing 8ths, but this is something different. Any literature on the subject?Elizabeth Field's response: The word you are looking for is "bariolage". This was a common baroque technique where one continually returns to the same note alternatively while forming a melody with the other notes. The classic example is from the first movement of Bach's 3rd Partita for solo violin where Bach has passages of reiterated "e's" under a melody. On a string instrument, this is an organic process that can happen with a string crossing, but it can surely be employed with other instruments.As for the uneven 16th notes, this is simply a call to realize that true musical expression simply cannot be notated, in the same way inflections and nuances for written text are not notated. In other words, although actors share the commonality of text, they should be, and are uniquely expressive. This can be directly attributed to their fluency and complete comprehension of the meaning of what they are saying. This organic comprehension allows them to all sound different and personal in their execution. It is painfully obvious with text that merely perfect pronunciation and enunciation with a nice voice (analogize, perfect intonation strict notated rhythm and a great sound) is not enough to make a great or expressive performance of a soliloquy.The 18th century was obsessed with language, and music was an extension of that expression. Playing 16th notes strictly on the page with a metronome, would be like reading text letter by letter evenly with little nuance. It becomes clear how dull that reading would be. In my opinion, this is what the performance traditions of the 20th century has done to 18th century music. Approaching that earlier notation like text makes you realize that very often, especially 16th note are grouped together and act as syllables or words, and should be performed that way. When we speak, we naturally compress our words, defining them from the first letter, and don't run them into the next word.Large metered rhythm also has a much greater importance. Most of the time movements written in 4/4 time for example, have an underlying allabreve harmonic rhythm or structure, and that is crucial for establishing a rhythmic foundation; long lines are not formed through individual notes as they are in the 19th/20th century.This all starts to make more sense when you also realize that the 19th-20th century paradigm is that all music leans forward over downbeats. 18th century music actually comes from the downbeat, with rock solid rhythm which allows a lot more freedom on little internal notes (hence uneven 16th notes) because the rhythm is not dependent on those individual notes for support.Its confusing to describe with words, but I have always supposed it was more similar to what I hear jazz musicians do. Its essentially creating larger rhythmic structures to allow more expressive freedom in the details, the opposite of what classical musicians are taught in conservatories. Malcolm explains that "compression" for example, which we are taught is never allowed, is one of the elemental building blocks of playing 18th century music expressively and is mandatory.