At 1:41 PM 05/31/03, David W. Fenton wrote: >I'm using the term "musical" in the same sense that you would when >you say "well, he may have a conservatory degree, but he's just not >very musical." Obviously, that wasn't clear, and, on the face of it, >my statement is absurd, as you point out.
I had this discussion in rec.music.opera not long ago. I mentioned that I found a certain singer's interpretations to be "unmusical". I expected plenty of disagreement with my opinion, which I know is in the minority. What surprised me was that several respondents didn't understand the term at all. They seemed to think I was suggesting the guy sang the wrong notes or something, and insisted that whether he was "musical" was an objective standard that could be measured, when in fact it's just the opposite. For what it's worth, David, I completely understood your distinction between those symbols which can be altered without loss of information and those which can't, and I see now what a useful concept it is. (My differing ideas about the purpose of an editor are based on something entirely separate.) mdl _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
