So, say you "de-mystify it" by figuring out some measurable unit, which of course is possible technologically (SMPTE time code comes to mind). The achievement is there but what have you gained that is of practical use? With time code you could lock (synchronize) a second something-or-other against a minute point in time played by the first, but what use would that be in teaching how or why the performer played it that way, so that the student could (presuming this is your goal) try to replicate that (within reason)?
I can absolutely, unequivocally guarantee you that a given measurement would be wrong if applied to the next performance of that piece by the same performer! So at best it would be a mere snapshot. True, a snapshot of the Grand Canyon is just as "mere" (!) but you get my point. Measurement, to me, seems cold, hard and sterile, even if accurate. Discernment suggests appreciation, for one thing, and could inspire a certain form of replication, for another thing. My Dean of Fine Arts told us college kids, "Go here the pros, and get good seats!" How wise he was to encourage us to regularly remind ourselves of how good "good" is. I think hearing musicality and being inspired to discover for one's self, with the guidance of a sensitive teacher perhaps, what it would mean to our own playing. In the end, mystification is part of the magic, the charm! It ought to be a hair mysterious as to how music becomes musical. The beauty is that a given performer can develop his or her own mysticness. So, mysticism ought to be *pursued*, not deflated. Mysticism is not necessarily exclusionary, if that's your beef. But you know what? If mysticism is beyond a certain musical student, no matter what, perhaps that's the guy or gal who was meant to be an accountant (which I never could be!) or perhaps a musician but not a performer. --Richard > From: "Stu McIntire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'm picking a nit, but I think holding that these changes are measurable is > important to me because that is the quality that deflates mysticism, in > general one of my missions in life. To me, if anything different between > two items is discernible, that means that if the quality that is different > is isolated, it can, in fact, be measured by some appropriate unit of > measure. For instance, variation in touch, from one note to the next, can > be quantified in units of velocity and/or volume; pitch, in cents, etc. _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
