I think we must discern between notation, interpretation and recorded music.
While interpretation may be comparable with painting a painting,
interpretation would be following close directions and adding some
personal touch, recorded music may be compared to a painting, as
long as we still agree the painter is following directions as "now
paint, just at the top left, a small red (blood-red, shade 30%) line,
3 mm (or inches, whatever), slightly whiggly (trill), and then switch
to blue (aquamarin) and ...)
Some people paint smaller dots, or take a different (wrong?) red
shade, or paint "to thick"... See what I mean?
Slightly more complicated than baking a cake.
A live recording of an improvisation may be the best musical analog
to a painting.
And when you say now: Hey, but the painter knows (to a certain
degree) what to paint before he starts .... - Hey, so does the
("good") improviser...
Kurt
At 16:53 03.04.2006, you wrote:
Invalid comparison. Literature and painting are creative
arts. Once completed, they are what they are. Music (and dance and
theater) are both creative and recreative arts. It is in the
recreation that each such work of art is different, by a little or
by a lot, every time it is recreated. Notation is not performance.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
