At 1:59 PM -0400 6/22/02, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: >At 8:00 AM -0700 6/22/02, Linda Worsley wrote: >> 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.
I do this a lot, too. But I know how to build a D major scale and how to spell an F# minor chord. In short, I pretty much know what I'm doing. He doesn't. And yes, he means it to be played by humans. >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.) You're right about all of the above. The problem is that he was trying to write a Broadway show type "song" in a particular dramatic setting, and it was so complex and full of anomalies that I used "Wozzeck" in a flip way. He was after something closer to, say, Gershwin or Sondheim, and instead it was an unplayable, unsingable thicket of stuff... I was being funny, and he turned it back on me by improvising a passage that sounded for all the world like a bit of Wozzeck. He's really quite amazing. (And so is Berg. No parallel. I was being facetious.) >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. Ah... we did that. We recorded some of the stuff live (with really good performers), and he was able to see many of the problems. That was the point where I was able to pull him back to the piano/vocal version... reducing each song to its basic form and content without a gazillion synth flute diddleydiddleys and impossible runs and 22 part chords on other "instruments". That was the point at which we began to make some progress. Before that, it was just "that's my vision" (oy) and "I'll just have to find players and singers who CAN do it." But the live experience (they did it all right, and did it well, but they rolled their eyes a lot, and the result was not what he expected.) >. 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. Yes, indeed... see above. This cost him a lot of money (we hired some great Broadway players and singers) but thank god we did it. Otherwise we'd have gotten to the table reading and staged reading phase in chaos. (I wouldn't have lasted that long.) >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. Yup. >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 Obviously you've been through this! But he has finally begun to hear the excesses and throw out the stuff that doesn't matter. But he still needs to learn how to do basic stuff. With a pencil. The computer is a great toy for amateurs and no-talents who just want to fool around. But this guy really wants to know how to do it, so he needs to back up and pretend he's about nine years old and approaching his first lesson. He says he'll try... bless him. It's only taken two years to get him to that state of mind, and now I want to do right by him. >IMHO, there is no reason not to have him continue on WHILE he learns >this basic stuff. Try and stop him! (I agree with your point, though) 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, Oh, believe me. He can't construct a key signature. I need a book, he needs a book, we need structure. I learned all this stuff before I was nine, and he's never learned it at all. > Plain old orchestration is much easier to learn than good melody and > counterpoint, and a lot of arranging is just counterpoint anyway. I can't agree that it's easier... there's the whole thing of writing idiomatically for the various instruments. He thinks it's enough to know what their ranges are. > 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. > Well, of course. I write by ear all the time. But knowing how to write down what I hear so that others can reproduce it... that is what I want HIM to know how to do. Thanks for a great post, and great suggestions Christopher! Linda Worsley -- Hear the music at: http://www.ganymuse.com/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
