Summary

Chapter VII addresses the fundamental problem of notating ametric rhythms within conventional notational systems, presenting four distinct strategies that represent different compromises between compositional conception and performative practicality. The first notation (exact values without measure) most faithfully represents ametric conception but works only for solo or small ensembles; the second (metric changes) follows Stravinsky's solution but taxes conductors; the third (rhythmic signs) offers an innovative hybrid but requires ensemble training; the fourth (false meter with exact accentuation) provides maximum practicality but contradicts compositional intent. Messiaen's pragmatic acknowledgment that no notation is perfect—each serves specific contexts and involves specific compromises—demonstrates mature understanding of notation's limitations. The supplementary examples revealing non-systematic rhythmic writing show that theoretical innovations do not constrain all compositional choices, reflecting intellectual honesty and compositional flexibility.

For contemporary readers, this chapter illustrates the persistent gap between musical thought and its notation, the necessity of choosing notational strategies based on practical performance contexts, and the understanding that scores function as instructions for producing sounds rather than perfect representations of compositional ideas. The chapter's conclusion—that regardless of notational method, exact durational values must be maintained—emphasizes that rhythmic precision is non-negotiable even when notation requires compromise. This completes Messiaen's rhythmic section: seven chapters developing a comprehensive ametric rhythmic system (Chapters II–VI) framed by aesthetic foundations (Chapter I) and practical notational considerations (Chapter VII), creating a complete theoretical and practical framework for rhythmic innovation grounded in systematic procedures, historical synthesis, and theological purpose.