At 12:40 PM -0400 6/24/06, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jun 23, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
"Once we cycle back out of these conservative artistic times and experiment
once becomes part of the composer's attitude, the software situation (and
codification dilemma) may improve -- or, as I suggested above, it may
result in further stratification of composers into a collaborative class
and a rejectionist class."
I don't think this "cycling back out" is likely any time soon.
Historically, the norm for notation is a very gradual evolution
based on changing understanding of what notations mean. Periods of
frank experimentation come along only about once every 300 years,
and seldom last very long.
And let's not forget that the development of non-traditional
notations in the 20th century was driven by one and only one
non-musical requirement: music could not be copyrighted unless it
could be represented on paper. Since it WAS necessary, composers
developed those notations, but except for that copyright requirement
those composers might have dropped notation entirely as being too
inexact for what they wanted to express.
But the evolution in interpretation of "standard" notation comes much
more rapidly, usually within 2 or at most 3 generations. Jazz and
classical musicians interpret identical notation in different ways
today, and jazz interpretation itself has evolved rapidly from the
ricky-tick of ragtime and the '20s to swing to whatever is understood
today. Which is exactly how something as universally understood as
baroque interpretation can be lost as fashions and styles evolve
while the notation does not.
John
--
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
