At 8:00 AM -0700 6/22/02, Linda Worsley wrote: > >For the past two years I have been sorting out and converting to >Finale files really awful files he has created, by guess and by >golly, in Encore (ugh), mostly playing them in with synthesizers, >and creating huge "scored" versions of songs for his "Broadway >musical." (Yeah, yeah, I know. I've told him, but let's move on. >He's "never had a failure" and he's determined that this will not be >his first.) All the songs are way, way too complicated, two thick, >and can only be played or "sung" by machines, not humans.
This last point may not be the problem it appears to be, unless the score is destined to be played solely by live musicians. I (for example) have often combined sequencers and live orchestras, and not just for budget reasons, but because frankly the synths can handle the highly technical passages and odd timbres with better consistency. A bigger problem is whether there is a lot of interference between parts. You mentioned Wozzeck, well, Berg's counterpoint and spacing is very clear, much more so than some Broadway orchestrations I could mention. (Obviously, there are other challenges to the listener in Wozzeck, but the thickness or busy-ness of the texture is not often among them.) > >Part of the problem is, of course, that anyone with a bunch of >synthesizers can decide he/she is a "composer", and crank out great >big "works." The machines-- computers and synths, which don't know >any better, will play it back just as if it made sense for live >musicians, but of course most of the time it doesn't. Like I said, a point that may carry more weight with him than some unknown musician's problems with his parts, is whether it makes sense to a LISTENER. And one way to show this to him is to get a bunch of players together for a demo and let him listen to how his work sounds. This is a much better teacher than any number of lectures and textbooks, and carries the weight of the evidence of his own ears, rather than taking your word for it. He will be much more ready to accept your point of view afterwards, as I can attest after the first reading session for my university arranging class. > >Here's the thing... he's really talented: that is, he has a very >interesting "voice," particularly for harmony, but actually for >pretty much everything... But he can't spell chords, can't spell >scales, doesn't know how to find a key signature, is totally >unacquainted with any of the so-called "rules" of music, or as I >like to call them "traditions and common practices." He is simply >completely and utterly unschooled in basic musical tradition and >knowledge. Hmm. He needs scales, chords, and basic rhythmic notation first. Counterpoint will seem pointless to him until he can make the connection between what he hears and what he is learning in counterpoint, but he will need to bite the bullet and hunker down to work. If, as I surmise, he is working completely by ear, building up arrangements in layers with his sequencer, he is probably overloading everything, on the assumption that if it sounds good while he is playing it in, it will continue to sound good when something else is layered on top of it, which as you know, is not true at all. Some analysis of things he likes the sound of will show this to him, as we all know, the tenor line sounds pretty dumb by itself, but glorious in context. IMHO, there is no reason not to have him continue on WHILE he learns this basic stuff. A lot can be corrected as you go, if as you say, he learns fast. I'm not sure I would use a book to teach him, unless he wants a reference outside class. I had a private student somewhat like this once, and I just told him what he needed, he agreed, and we got down to it. It took him a while to make the connections with his more advanced ideas, but I did my best to point out things to him all the time, like things that stay inside the key, things that don't, melodic ornaments as they showed up in stuff we looked at, contrary motion and various implementations of the species counterpoint. Plain old orchestration is much easier to learn than good melody and counterpoint, and a lot of arranging is just counterpoint anyway. If he analyses something he likes, then applies the same analysis to HIS work, he may pick up something. Or he might toss it all and go back to working by ear without understanding. That's always a risk. As I point out to my students, most composers write by ear anyway, the analysis is just to keep them from writing themselves into a corner. Good luck with this! Christopher _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
