On Friday, Jan 2, 2004, at 07:08 US/Pacific, David H. Bailey wrote:
I don't think you can make the presumption that the chords would be continuously parallel.
How 'bout "largely" parallel? Chris describes using one hand.
Yes, but I have large hands (a twelfth in my left hand, which is the hand I use for entering MIDI info.) I can extend that by using my nose, a toe, a pencil between my teeth, or one of my children (usually for a bass-register note that is widely separated.) One of my small-handed colleagues uses a small accordian-sized keyboard (made by Roland) for entering MIDI data in order to enter large spreads in one shot. In fact, I often enter even non-homophonic passages this way, then add the ornamentations in the various voices once I have exploded.
And I don't think it really matters if you think of it as one part with 4 voices or 4 parts that are in sync with each other.
I think of such a passage as 4 parts in sync with each other, but I'm not sure why how it is thought of would make a difference in the discussion.
Little difference for the "Explode!" topic per se.
That's why I was confused.
However, more than interesting for me to hear how folks describe such relationships as it would seem to reflect on their analytical ear. Kinda wondering if I've done too much Bach at this point.
Philip
Aha, now we are off the Explode function, and into counterpoint.
I'm not sure I would necessarily group passages together according to how much counterpoint (in the traditional sense of the word) they contain. It's a little greyer than that for me (although admittedly I am not a thoroughly trained contrapuntist, like Hal Owen is. Great book, Hal!)
I remember being told in first-year theory that if ANY one voice moves in non-parallel (or non-similar) motion, then the contrapuntal relationship of the passage is preserved, otherwise it falls immediately into the domain of parallism, which my teacher hastened to assure me is not so much bad music as bad counterpoint. Some composers in the jazz domain (Duke Ellington, Thad Jones, notably) adhered more or less to this concept, even in places where other jazz composers might have resorted to all-parallel line thickening-type voicings. I'm not convinced that it makes all that much difference.
Certainly if the thrust of a passage is primarily contrapuntal, then the more one avoids parallelism the more counterpoint one hears, but ONE voice in oblique motion saving the whole passage from the dreaded curse of parallelism? I dunno.
BUT (as PeeWee Herman said, everyone has a big but) I recognize that counterpoint (even homophonic counterpoint, which is what we are talking about, I suppose) can save a passage from the even more dreaded curse of monotony, even outside a classical idiom. Pure parallism gets boring in large doses, as it creates a "hum" of consistent sound without variation, kind of like musical whitewash. If that's what you need, so be it. But a lot of musicians (mostly non-classical) rely on this thickening technique way too much. It's the difference between say, the unrelenting wall of parallel harmony one hears in most radio music, and the more intricate, variable, and interesting harmonies one hears in the Beach Boys, or Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, or some of the better R+B groups.
I guess the word is, don't stick to the same thing for too long, and it will go over fine. You can get away with a lot if it doesn't last very long, and you can't get away with much if that's all you got. (words of one my composition teachers.)
Sorry to get off the topic of classical music, but as I get older, I see more and more similarity and less and less difference between the various idioms.
Christopher
On Wednesday, Dec 31, 2003, at 12:15 US/Pacific, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:I often write for big band, and homophonic sections are easily entered by holding down big fat 4 or 5 part chords on the MIDI keyboard with one hand while entering the note value with the other, on the first trumpet part for example, then Exploding it to the other trumpet staves.
As a matter of clarification, and not to disagree with your other remarks on Finale's Explode, I would characterize anything with such lock-step rhythm and (presumably) continuously parallel motions as being conceptually one "part". Like in a 4 part piece, it would be one part ("homophonic sections" and "first trumpet part" notwithstanding) and the various trumpets being the "voices" of the part. Agree or disagree?
Philip Aker http://www.aker.ca
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
