I thought there was a discussion board on the different settings item but now I can't see it.
My thought was:
If the clocks are set to [play+tacet] 5+1; 4+2; 3+3; 2+4 and 1+5 and all the players play all the clocks once
then
every player plays 5+4+3+2+1
and is silent 1+2+3+4+5
then in total they play 15 and are silent 15. So 50:50.
One can then discuss if the swapping of clocks is worth it.Note: This is correct, writes Phil Morton
It eliminates some extreme playing options (say, play 15 and be silent to the end).
It will keep the changes in the mix at a much more constant rate.
It means that there is less chance of total silence and less chance that many players think they have to 'make a solo' at the same time.
That is, if playing 5 and silent 1 is a solo - but indeed one could try to retire the background for 5 mins with a comforting drone.
A result different to 50:50 is made if the clocks are not rotated and the sense of 'everyone has a democratic right to have their voice heard equally' is withdrawn. Interesting social moment.
Even so, just what is the difference between each player with a single clock showing the total durations of play and tacet as opposed to dividing these up onto different clocks? If I have one clock showing 5+1 and another 4+6 then I get 9+7. So why not just put that on one clock?
It is possible that the psychology of giving someone a clock saying 'silent 5 and play 1' is that they start more in a more listening mode, because they know the maximum time they can dominate (or even contribute) is 1 minute out of 6.
There might not be a logical difference, but there might be a psychological difference.
Needs more research.
Robin Hartwell