Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT
> From: Andrew Stiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ...at the rate things are going the beauty of music is unlikely to remain beyond understanding for more than another 20 years or so. Oh let's hope not! I mean, would you really want to "understand" the mystery of a beautiful woman? Wouldn't you rather enjoy being intrigued by it? If so, doesn't the same sentiment apply to music? I rather think I do understand the mystery of a beautiful woman: symmetrical features imply overall genetic health, measurements in various ratios signify good prospect for reproduction, dilated eyes show strong interest in *me*, various temperamental differences reflect different male vs. female investments in reproductive process, etc. My emotional responses to all of the above built in because my own (theoretical) reproductive success is heavily affected by them. Latest research (new this week) shows men think beautiful women even have more attractive voices. When I was younger, I didn't understand women at all, and for that reason I was terrified of them. Understanding is much more pleasant. At least for some of us. -- Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT
David W. Fenton wrote: But there is no single pattern that can be imposed on every measure of a piece, so that means adjustments need to be made constantly according to the flow of the music, and it is the ability to perceive the need for those adjustments and the sense to know the extent of necessary adjustment that is what I think is called "musicality." It's the envelope around the pitches and rhtythms and dynamics, and the constant adjustment of that enveloped along multiple parameters that results in a performance that sounds free and open and "musical." And some people have it and some people don't. I agree completely with this, but I'd like to suggest that there are probably peak periods in a child's development when this, like so much else, can be learned almost effortlessly, but if those periods pass it becomes increasingly difficult to learn. An important part of Suzuki pedagogy (which I don't care for for other reasons) is having children learn their pieces from a recording, and this, I think, is a very good thing because what we recognize as musicality can be and is learned along with the mechanics. Kids are really amazing in their ability to pick up music almost effortlessly by ear, and its an ability that should be encouraged because in fact it is the way we learn ANY style. Trying to teach musicality to a college student as an intellectual activity can be very frustrating, if they haven't already internalized a given style. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT
Or as Materlinck would have it -- "In some strange way we devalue things as soon as we give utterance to them" Gerald Berg Richard Huggins wrote: From: Andrew Stiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ...at the rate things are going the beauty of music is unlikely to remain beyond understanding for more than another 20 years or so. Oh let's hope not! I mean, would you really want to "understand" the mystery of a beautiful woman? Wouldn't you rather enjoy being intrigued by it? If so, doesn't the same sentiment apply to music? I certainly think so. I want to understand enough to be able to start the process of making it, but I don't want to miss out on having it surprise me, even as *I* am the one writing it. And never would I want to be know why a turn of a note, a nuance of a harmony or the drive of a rhythm moves or excites me. I just want the end result. Quote: "There are mysteries too deep and too wonderful to be cheapened by man's ability to understand them." -- Richard Huggins, 2003 (smile) --RH ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs) OT
David Fenton: While I can shoot down what was wrong with the whole endeavor -- the main problem was the goal of having definitive "factual" answers to questions that are not scientific -- I sure as hell wish I could run MIDI data through an activity analysis program, and get a score that had 3 activity numbers for ever measure in a piece! Indeed, I don't know of much in the way of computerized analytical tools at all. I raised this subject a few years ago on the this list and was pointed in the direction of a handful of programs that seemed to be designed for heavy-duty non-tonal theorists (set theory is easy to program in comparison to analyzing functional harmony). I havent' kept up with the subject at all, and would like to know if anyone is aware of any work like this? I can't address the musical end of this, but very similar work has been done (with great success) in identifying the authorship of anonymous writings. Don Foster's book _Author Unknown_ is a highly entertaining and eye-opening introduction to the area, wh. he pioneered. Law enforcement agencies are beginning to use his techniques to help identify the authors of ransom notes and terrorist manifestos. I see no reason why similar means could not be used to, for example, divide the motets of the Mo and Ba MSS into groups assignable to single composers. -- Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT
First you'd have to get everybody to agree on what constitutes a "beautiful" woman, something I don't think will ever happen, no matter how many scientists are on the case! Richard Huggins wrote: From: Andrew Stiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ...at the rate things are going the beauty of music is unlikely to remain beyond understanding for more than another 20 years or so. Oh let's hope not! I mean, would you really want to "understand" the mystery of a beautiful woman? Wouldn't you rather enjoy being intrigued by it? If so, doesn't the same sentiment apply to music? I certainly think so. I want to understand enough to be able to start the process of making it, but I don't want to miss out on having it surprise me, even as *I* am the one writing it. And never would I want to be know why a turn of a note, a nuance of a harmony or the drive of a rhythm moves or excites me. I just want the end result. Quote: "There are mysteries too deep and too wonderful to be cheapened by man's ability to understand them." -- Richard Huggins, 2003 (smile) --RH ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale . -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT
What will be really intriguing will be when they figure out one person thinks one thing is beautiful and another thinks the same thing is a piece of crap -- the way my parents thought Lawrence Welk's orchestra was beautiful and I definitely did not share their opinion. That will take some explaining! Andrew Stiller wrote: Stu McIntyre: We can simply disagree about mysicism. I do make a distinction between mystery and mysticism, however. This argument reminds me of the old argument about knowledge or understanding deflating mystery (what was it by Wordsworth, Tintern Abbey?). The *beauty* of music is still beyond understanding, Oh dear, you've fallen off the wagon--and you were doing so well! The biological basis of esthetic response may still be unexplained, but, as they say, the scientists are on the case, and at the rate things are going the beauty of music is unlikely to remain beyond understanding for more than another 20 years or so. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT
>>Stu McIntyre: >We can simply disagree about mysicism. I do make a distinction between >mystery and mysticism, however. This argument reminds me of the old argument about knowledge or understanding deflating mystery (what was it by >Wordsworth, Tintern Abbey?). The *beauty* of music is still beyond >understanding, >Oh dear, you've fallen off the wagon--and you were doing so well! The >biological basis of esthetic response may still be unexplained, but, >as they say, the scientists are on the case, and at the rate things >are going the beauty of music is unlikely to remain beyond >understanding for more than another 20 years or so. -- >Andrew Stiller >Kallisti Music Press Getting hit from both sides now! Whenever the scientists figure it out, I won't be disappointed, I won't think anything precious has been irretrievably lost. I hope that clarifies which side of the fence I'm on, even if it doesn't quite redeem me to either - Stu ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT
> From: Andrew Stiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ...at the rate things are going the beauty of music is unlikely to remain > beyond understanding for more than another 20 years or so. Oh let's hope not! I mean, would you really want to "understand" the mystery of a beautiful woman? Wouldn't you rather enjoy being intrigued by it? If so, doesn't the same sentiment apply to music? I certainly think so. I want to understand enough to be able to start the process of making it, but I don't want to miss out on having it surprise me, even as *I* am the one writing it. And never would I want to be know why a turn of a note, a nuance of a harmony or the drive of a rhythm moves or excites me. I just want the end result. Quote: "There are mysteries too deep and too wonderful to be cheapened by man's ability to understand them." -- Richard Huggins, 2003 (smile) --RH ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT
Stu McIntyre: We can simply disagree about mysicism. I do make a distinction between mystery and mysticism, however. This argument reminds me of the old argument about knowledge or understanding deflating mystery (what was it by Wordsworth, Tintern Abbey?). The *beauty* of music is still beyond understanding, Oh dear, you've fallen off the wagon--and you were doing so well! The biological basis of esthetic response may still be unexplained, but, as they say, the scientists are on the case, and at the rate things are going the beauty of music is unlikely to remain beyond understanding for more than another 20 years or so. -- Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs) OT
On Tuesday, Jun 3, 2003, at 16:35 America/Vancouver, David W. Fenton wrote: Indeed, I don't know of much in the way of computerized analytical tools at all. I raised this subject a few years ago on the this list and was pointed in the direction of a handful of programs that seemed to be designed for heavy-duty non-tonal theorists (set theory is easy to program in comparison to analyzing functional harmony). I havent' kept up with the subject at all, and would like to know if anyone is aware of any work like this? I haven't kept up with it much either but I think what you'd need is a machine that can run SmallTalk and/or Lisp and cruise though some CMJ's from the mid-90s onwards to get some software names. Also there's Max. If there are not any pre-built patches available, one could certainly make up there own. Peter Castine might be a good contact for this area. Is this, perhaps, a job for a Finale plugin? For instance, what if I could designate the cadence points in a piece and then have the plugin summarize the number of different cadence types? Sounds simple? Well, it's not, because the repertory in which this would be useful is early polyphony, where it is actually a question of some import. So, you'd really be looking at the final configuration and how it relates to the penultimate configuration and then classifying accordingly in terms of voicing and cadential pitch. In any event, is the plugin toolkit advanced enough to do that kind of thing? Yes. Go ahead. There's good advice on Jari's site about setting up x86 compilers (even free ones). It would need to have some temporary data storage capability, both for the UI settings and for each piece (you wouldn't want to recalculate certain kinds of information each time), so I have my doubts. Temporary or permanent plugin data storage isn't a problem at all. * Apropos the above, I've heard on the CBC radio show "Quirks and Quarks" a computer generated composition based on analysis of quite a few Scott Joplin pieces. However the rendered tune didn't observe Joplin's penchant for a 6/4 dominant as the penultimate chord. Cadences are telling indeed! Philip Aker http://www.aker.ca ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs) OT
On 3 Jun 2003 at 13:31, Stu McIntire wrote: > I don't think what the percussionist's tutor was trying to get out of the > hapless mechanical student in the original post was really all that > mysterious; sounds to me like the teacher wasn't very clear or resourceful. > "Musicality" in this case, maybe most of the time, is not some ghost in the > machine that can't be measured; it is quite simply small but measurable > changes in "real" attributes of the sounds, and spaces between the sounds, > that comprise the music. You can tweak a midi file to sound musical in the > sense meant by this post, I am convinced. Small adjustments to velocity, > duration, and pitch as appropriate in a musical context can do the trick. I > sometimes wonder if metaphysical beliefs about the nature of music > frequently blind teachers from developing practical suggestions that can > help students improve in this area. Well, it's interesting that this should come on the tail end of a discussion that in one branch consisted of pretty definitive statements of how notating swing precisely as it sounds is neither desirable nor really possible. I agree that musicality mostly consists of what I call "making the music dance," and that most of that has to do with controlling relative accentuation and agogics. Yes, that could be be taught by rote, just as it can to a certain extent be imposed on a MIDI performance. But there is no single pattern that can be imposed on every measure of a piece, so that means adjustments need to be made constantly according to the flow of the music, and it is the ability to perceive the need for those adjustments and the sense to know the extent of necessary adjustment that is what I think is called "musicality." It's the envelope around the pitches and rhtythms and dynamics, and the constant adjustment of that enveloped along multiple parameters that results in a performance that sounds free and open and "musical." And some people have it and some people don't. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs) OT
On 3 Jun 2003 at 9:23, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: > Back in my undergrad days I had lunch with one of my theory teachers > and we discussed some interesting research that had been done into > finding out how the brain reacts to different types of music. I said > I thought this might have big implications for theorists and > composers, and he asked me if I thought, some day, we might be able > to identify and analyse every aspect of music as we hear it. I > responded (in my youthful enthusiasm) yes! and he replied, "Well, > then, you are a much more dedicated theorist than I am." > > That conversation affected me deeply. Now I have been working on > (Warning! True section ends, joke ahead!) my Grand Unified Music > Theory, which will reduce all aspects of all music to a simple > formula that will fit on a half-page of paper. One will be able to > understand everything about a piece by simply reading the analysis. > This will eliminate the need to listen to music at all! > > I'm almost finished it, just a few kinks to work out... Well, believe it or not, there was a positivistic belief in the idea of complete analysis back in the 50s and 60s and 70s. There was also a belief that computers would make it possible to analyze a lot of things that were too complex to be analyzed by humans (or just too much data). One such project took as its goal the abstraction of ideas about musical style. The goal was to use the analysis in the service of making determinations of authenticity based on style. First, you'd take a body of demonstrably authentic works by composer X and run them through the handy-dandy-musickalizer, and out would come your data. Then you'd run the demonstrably authentic works of composer Y and Z through the same hand-dandy-musickalizer. Then you'd take the unknown work (or the one with conflicting attributions) and run it through the mechanism and then you'd have a definitive answer as to who wrote it. I am not making this up, folks. It was called "Activity Analysis," and at base, was actually a really excellent idea. It was based on the idea of determining rates of change in surface rhythm, melody and harmony (all of which is quite musically sensible, actually), and then doing some kind of transformation on the result the eventually boiled down to a single number (and this is where things got bogus, of course). One of the first test cases involved some pieces with conflicting attributions to Mozart and Dittersdorf. The problems were manyfold: 1. Two distinct musical styles could threoretically result in the same number, so it wasn't telling you anything definitive. 2. Although they did consider the factors separately as well, this didn't help, because those, too, were boiled down numbers for a whole piece or a whole movement, and many things about "activity" levels a particular piece are going to be drawn from conventions for a particular genre of piece (a minuet is a minuet is a minuet, at a certain level), so you might not actually be examining style of composers so much as aspects of generic configurations that would cause a composer to make particular stylistic choices within that genre. 3. Because it is about rates of change, it tends to privilege rhythm over other things, since it's all about change over time. I'm not as bothered by this objection as by the others, because to me, that's what music is, changes in pitch and rhythm and harmony over time, of varying densities and intensities. But it does tend to place the time element at the forefront as analytic determiner. 4. Your "control sets" (i.e., the demonstrably authentic pieces) have to be very pure. It is the last aspect in which the original practitioners fell down the worst, as they used 4 symphonies that have been attributed to Mozart for which there are absolutely no authentic sources and which have not been really believed to be by Mozart for the last 20 years or so (the research happened in the early 70s, at a time when most scholars had already concluded that these pieces are not by Mozart). While I can shoot down what was wrong with the whole endeavor -- the main problem was the goal of having definitive "factual" answers to questions that are not scientific -- I sure as hell wish I could run MIDI data through an activity analysis program, and get a score that had 3 activity numbers for ever measure in a piece! Indeed, I don't know of much in the way of computerized analytical tools at all. I raised this subject a few years ago on the this list and was pointed in the direction of a handful of programs that seemed to be designed for heavy-duty non-tonal theorists (set theory is easy to program in comparison to analyzing functional harmony). I havent' kept up with the subject at all, and would like to know if anyone is aware of any work like this? Is this, perhaps, a job for a Finale plugin? For instance, what if I could designate the cadence points i
RE: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT
I am most profoundly not saying that by getting out a magnifying glass, or a sequencer, to objectify the differences between a student's and a teacher's realization of a piece, to identify as fully as possible what is different, that the student can subsequently get to the "IT" of the piece, that the student will understand BEAUTY, that he will finally comprehend the entire universe of unknowns and unknowables. I am saying that throwing up one's hands before looking closely, very closely, to see what CAN be discerned, and invoking the Great Mystery Gee-you-will-never-get-the-ineffable approach is unfair, and, I suspect, fairly common. I know that music teachers sometimes don't realize that boredom and fatigue keep them from even realizing that they are not digging deep enough to help their students. Hey, I'm not pretending to have even a tiny toehold on the G T of M. The mystery is still there, I'm just saying that the the workbench it is on the other side of is bigger and has more tools on it than is often realized. >I guess you are more advanced than I am on my Grand Theory of Music, >then. I still haven't quite worked out how all those small, >measurable, and discernable differences make one performance into >something that drops your jaw and brings tears to your eyes, and >another performance just makes you shrug and say, "That was pretty >good." Being able to measure them doesn't necessarily make you >understand them, unless you are a much more dedicated theorist than I >am... ;-) >Seriously, though, I'm sure you grasp that you don't have to >subscribe to mysticism to realise that you may not be able to >understand something perfectly. I'm no mystic, I have never hugged a >tree or had my spirit leave my body, but I know that some music talks >to me in a barely understood language, and some music doesn't, and I >don't know why exactly, though I really want to know how and why, and >may never find out EVERYTHING about it. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT
Now now, I think you are willfully mis-reading my email, something I am guilty of, too, from time to time, I'm sure. But I thought I was somewhat clear, at least. Rather than cutting and quoting specific lines and answering them individually, let me say that what I think you achieve by an exercise such as I suggested is a general heightened sensitivity to nuance, not just a very detailed description of how to play every single note (and rest) in one specific piece. In practice, a teacehr would not do this just once; it would need to be done repeatedly over weeks or months, I assume. The analogy to biofeedback, again: once someone learns how to control blood pressure, they have *learned* something that stays with them. Measurement is not cold and sterile, of itself; it's just a tool. By using the piano roll or event list in a sequencer (also not sterile of itself) to point out quantifiable differences between the initial performance and the target performance (but how's that for sterile?), over entire phrases, you get the student to listen for what you are talking about, the difference that makes a difference. I'm not suggesting that a teacher tell Mechanical Student, "ok, play the 33rd note in this sequence with a velocity of x, and the 34th note with velocity y", etc. The actual measurement itself is not the important thing; the activity is just to get the student to apprehend and appreciate a distinction that was previously outside his range. If one can discern a difference between two things, then, given enough time and the proper tools, one can identify what is different and measure it. This does not mean taking the life out of it. Here is a real-life analogy that anybody who teaches realistic painting will recognize. Let's say an art student and a teacher go out together to paint a landscape. After they are both complete, let's just say they both can tell why one is the teacher and the other the student. You simply can identify and measure what is different - colors, shapes, brush strokes, etc. "You painted the leaves on this tree using just one green color, but look what I did - I used probably 25 hues, shades, and tints of green, and got a much livelier and more lifelike result. See, this green here is more blue green that the hue you used [measurement], as is this one, but made more neutral with the addition of cadmium red [measurement], etc. Now look at the tree, and you'll see that it really has an infinite range of greens." The student may not ever get as good as the teacher, but the next time he paints a tree, you can bet it will be better. He will probably see trees differently from this point on. Beginning art students actually often do paint a tree's leaves all one color of green, and they invariably improve when they get beyond this point. I'm just saying the same thing happens with music. We can simply disagree about mysicism. I do make a distinction between mystery and mysticism, however. This argument reminds me of the old argument about knowledge or understanding deflating mystery (what was it by Wordsworth, Tintern Abbey?). The *beauty* of music is still beyond understanding, a wonderful mystery. As are trees and flowers, even though I understand (or used to) photosynthesis, plant physiology, etc. And Brahms' Intermezzo in A Major is still as beautiful to me now, with a degree in music theory, as it was when I first heard it in high school and didn't understand what was going on in it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Huggins Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 3:09 PM To: Finale List Subject: Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT 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.
RE: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT
At 2:50 PM -0400 6/03/03, Stu McIntire wrote: 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. I guess you are more advanced than I am on my Grand Theory of Music, then. I still haven't quite worked out how all those small, measurable, and discernable differences make one performance into something that drops your jaw and brings tears to your eyes, and another performance just makes you shrug and say, "That was pretty good." Being able to measure them doesn't necessarily make you understand them, unless you are a much more dedicated theorist than I am... ;-) Seriously, though, I'm sure you grasp that you don't have to subscribe to mysticism to realise that you may not be able to understand something perfectly. I'm no mystic, I have never hugged a tree or had my spirit leave my body, but I know that some music talks to me in a barely understood language, and some music doesn't, and I don't know why exactly, though I really want to know how and why, and may never find out EVERYTHING about it. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT
At 10:08 PM 6/3/03 +0200, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote: >You don't draw up a formula first and then see how it sounds. Somewhat, but not entirely, tangentially: In algorithmic composition, you do exactly that. Because there is no way to imagine the results of most formulas, it is created and then executed. If you think this is produces something cold or inhuman, you should have a listen to some of Nick Didkovsky's music for his band Dr. Nerve -- especially his amazing piece "Ereia" for the Sirius String Quartet and Dr. Nerve. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT
I think that the parameters of the physics of sound follow in order of reason after the spiritually intended. There is a good saying: "Mind before matter". You don't draw up a formula first and then see how it sounds. You measure the soundwave and come up with the physical accoustic results which arose from human thought. And if thought is not spiritual then we may as well consult our Pentium IV processors to write our mails for us. When you teach someone "musicality" you go through the specifics of the physics involved only to make sure both teacher and student are understanding each other. But once that understanding is there, and both are aware of it, then the teacher is free to start talking in more abstract terms, and then the student takes off in wonderful colors and vision and insight and depth and grace and anger and peace and all that other cool stuf that ain't got numbers attached to it (or even dollar signs for that matter). Liudas - Original Message - From: "Stu McIntire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Richard Huggins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Finale List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:50 PM Subject: RE: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT > 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. > > > From: "Stu McIntire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > "Musicality" in this case, maybe most of the time, is not some ghost in > the > > machine that can't be measured; it is quite simply small but measurable > > changes in "real" attributes of the sounds, and spaces between the sounds, > > that comprise the music. > > I think this is a good description. I sometimes use a term I call "volume > shading" to describe, as best I can, the concept of "touch" at the piano. > And touch is an intimate cousin of musicality--what is called above "small > but measurable changes" (although I would not quite agree with "measurable," > rather "discernible"). I heard a children's choir accompanist play recently > at a church, and the lady played the notes almost perfectly, yet had no > variation of touch or emphasis. To me it was quite distracting. > > Changes in pressure, not only from note to note but also within notes > pressed at the same time, mixed with all sorts of shadings of tempo, figure > into musicality. > > "Spaces between the sounds" is insightful--how true. > > -Richard > > ___ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT
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
RE: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT
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. > From: "Stu McIntire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "Musicality" in this case, maybe most of the time, is not some ghost in the > machine that can't be measured; it is quite simply small but measurable > changes in "real" attributes of the sounds, and spaces between the sounds, > that comprise the music. I think this is a good description. I sometimes use a term I call "volume shading" to describe, as best I can, the concept of "touch" at the piano. And touch is an intimate cousin of musicality--what is called above "small but measurable changes" (although I would not quite agree with "measurable," rather "discernible"). I heard a children's choir accompanist play recently at a church, and the lady played the notes almost perfectly, yet had no variation of touch or emphasis. To me it was quite distracting. Changes in pressure, not only from note to note but also within notes pressed at the same time, mixed with all sorts of shadings of tempo, figure into musicality. "Spaces between the sounds" is insightful--how true. -Richard ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs) OT
I wouldn't have given up on you! 'Still not convinced, in principle. Maybe a few people really can't be, but as a general rule it seems like a theory that is just not very useful. I've known too many people with apparently no talent find their way through to something remarkable. I think if your scenario happened today, and your teacher had you play in a sequencer, and then played herself in a sequencer so that you could visually see the difference, after a few careful listening/watching sessions you would discover the difference and be able to act on it, even if only in baby steps. "Oh, THAT'S what you're talking about". Exactly the same approach that works with biofeedback, allowing people to control bodily functions by helping them find the mechanisms for control. It's a matter of getting people to adjust their nuance threshold to become aware of greater subtlety, sometimes (not with you, I expect, considering your background) to even realize that attention to subtlety on a more granular level is worth it, that there is even a THERE there. And I dunno, but one spouse teaching anotherfrom my experience with this dubious enterprise, she might've just latched on to the nearest excuse... ;+) - >>At 06/03/2003 01:31 PM, Stu McIntire wrote: >>that comprise the music. You can tweak a midi file to sound musical in the >>sense meant by this post, I am convinced. Small adjustments to velocity, >>duration, and pitch as appropriate in a musical context can do the trick. I >>sometimes wonder if metaphysical beliefs about the nature of music >>frequently blind teachers from developing practical suggestions that can >>help students improve in this area. >I took piano lessons ( long time ago) and was a hapless student. >One day she played my lesson and said (playing the piano) "This is the way >that you play it." >And then she said (playing the piano) "This is the way it should be played." >And I, as a person with a Master's degree in music theory, said I could >hear absolutely no difference. >Some things cannot be taught. >And it probably explains why my wife, who teaches 50 piano students a week, >refused to give me lessons ;-) >Phil Daley < AutoDesk > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT
> From: "Stu McIntire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "Musicality" in this case, maybe most of the time, is not some ghost in the > machine that can't be measured; it is quite simply small but measurable > changes in "real" attributes of the sounds, and spaces between the sounds, > that comprise the music. I think this is a good description. I sometimes use a term I call "volume shading" to describe, as best I can, the concept of "touch" at the piano. And touch is an intimate cousin of musicality--what is called above "small but measurable changes" (although I would not quite agree with "measurable," rather "discernible"). I heard a children's choir accompanist play recently at a church, and the lady played the notes almost perfectly, yet had no variation of touch or emphasis. To me it was quite distracting. Changes in pressure, not only from note to note but also within notes pressed at the same time, mixed with all sorts of shadings of tempo, figure into musicality. "Spaces between the sounds" is insightful--how true. -Richard ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs) OT
At 06/03/2003 01:31 PM, Stu McIntire wrote: >that comprise the music. You can tweak a midi file to sound musical in the >sense meant by this post, I am convinced. Small adjustments to velocity, >duration, and pitch as appropriate in a musical context can do the trick. I >sometimes wonder if metaphysical beliefs about the nature of music >frequently blind teachers from developing practical suggestions that can >help students improve in this area. I took piano lessons ( long time ago) and was a hapless student. One day she played my lesson and said (playing the piano) "This is the way that you play it." And then she said (playing the piano) "This is the way it should be played." And I, as a person with a Master's degree in music theory, said I could hear absolutely no difference. Some things cannot be taught. And it probably explains why my wife, who teaches 50 piano students a week, refused to give me lessons ;-) Phil Daley < AutoDesk > http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs) OT
I don't think what the percussionist's tutor was trying to get out of the hapless mechanical student in the original post was really all that mysterious; sounds to me like the teacher wasn't very clear or resourceful. "Musicality" in this case, maybe most of the time, is not some ghost in the machine that can't be measured; it is quite simply small but measurable changes in "real" attributes of the sounds, and spaces between the sounds, that comprise the music. You can tweak a midi file to sound musical in the sense meant by this post, I am convinced. Small adjustments to velocity, duration, and pitch as appropriate in a musical context can do the trick. I sometimes wonder if metaphysical beliefs about the nature of music frequently blind teachers from developing practical suggestions that can help students improve in this area. - At 12:28 PM 6/3/03 +0100, Steven D Sandiford wrote: >>Musicality - it's a hard thing to define, but such an easy thing to >>identify. >Sometimes I think I've wandered into the alt.finale.romantic-notions newsgroup. :) >Yesterday it was music too fancy to be notated, today it's mysterious musicality. I fear tomorrow will bring Music as Revelation. >Okay, okay, I know. But sometimes it does get a wee bit foggy 'round these parts. >Dennis ...happy to be working only on electroacoustics today. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs) OT
Let's see... then there's thermal noise and our heartbeats and blood flowing through our ears... Mighty complex, this. L. - Original Message - From: "Phil Daley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 6:52 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs) OT > At 06/03/2003 11:48 AM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: > > >At 4:31 PM +0200 6/03/03, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote: > >>Did you know that it [The Grand Unified Music Theory] has already been > >>started? > >> > >>The mathematical expression for the first 7 right hand notes of the Mozart > >>Sonata in C is: > >> > >>sin(2^((48*(step(t-0)-step(t-.8))+52*(step(t-.8)-step(t-1.2))+55*(step(t-1 .2 > >>)-step(t-1.6))+47*(step(t-1.6)-step(t-2.2))+48*(step(t-2.2)-step(t-2.3))+5 0* > >>(step(t-2.3)-step(t-2.4))+48*(step(t-2.4)-step(t-2.8)))/12)*102.7401*t) > >> > >>The formula is in a primitive form, but it illustrates the concept. It can > >>be expanded without limit to include any timbres, any pitches (even sliding > >>and outside of the twelve tones) (between the cracks) (or non pitch noises), > >>any envelope, and any number of voices. In its present form, it generates > >>monodic sine waves. > > > >Dang! It only includes pitches, durations, and rhythms. *MY* theory > >includes EVERYTHING, not only accents, inflections, dynamics, and the > >likelihood of the performer "clamming" (which adds to the excitement, > >kind of like a tightrope walker almost falling), but it also includes > >a formula for gauging emotional response in the listener, prorated > >according to what he had for lunch, how comfortable his seat is, and > >whether he really "gets" what the composer was trying to accomplish, > >among other things. > > I am surprised that you left out audience reaction and other random noise ;-) > Phil Daley < AutoDesk > > http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley > > ___ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs) OT
At 06/03/2003 11:48 AM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: >At 4:31 PM +0200 6/03/03, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote: >>Did you know that it [The Grand Unified Music Theory] has already been >>started? >> >>The mathematical expression for the first 7 right hand notes of the Mozart >>Sonata in C is: >> >>sin(2^((48*(step(t-0)-step(t-.8))+52*(step(t-.8)-step(t-1.2))+55*(step(t-1.2 >>)-step(t-1.6))+47*(step(t-1.6)-step(t-2.2))+48*(step(t-2.2)-step(t-2.3))+50* >>(step(t-2.3)-step(t-2.4))+48*(step(t-2.4)-step(t-2.8)))/12)*102.7401*t) >> >>The formula is in a primitive form, but it illustrates the concept. It can >>be expanded without limit to include any timbres, any pitches (even sliding >>and outside of the twelve tones) (between the cracks) (or non pitch noises), >>any envelope, and any number of voices. In its present form, it generates >>monodic sine waves. > >Dang! It only includes pitches, durations, and rhythms. *MY* theory >includes EVERYTHING, not only accents, inflections, dynamics, and the >likelihood of the performer "clamming" (which adds to the excitement, >kind of like a tightrope walker almost falling), but it also includes >a formula for gauging emotional response in the listener, prorated >according to what he had for lunch, how comfortable his seat is, and >whether he really "gets" what the composer was trying to accomplish, >among other things. I am surprised that you left out audience reaction and other random noise ;-) Phil Daley < AutoDesk > http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs) OT
> Dang! It only includes pitches, durations, and rhythms. *MY* theory > includes EVERYTHING, And I thought I was pretty good at maths... Uh... does your theory come in shots or pills ...? ;-) Liudas ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs) OT
At 4:31 PM +0200 6/03/03, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote: Did you know that it [The Grand Unified Music Theory] has already been started? The mathematical expression for the first 7 right hand notes of the Mozart Sonata in C is: sin(2^((48*(step(t-0)-step(t-.8))+52*(step(t-.8)-step(t-1.2))+55*(step(t-1.2 )-step(t-1.6))+47*(step(t-1.6)-step(t-2.2))+48*(step(t-2.2)-step(t-2.3))+50* (step(t-2.3)-step(t-2.4))+48*(step(t-2.4)-step(t-2.8)))/12)*102.7401*t) The formula is in a primitive form, but it illustrates the concept. It can be expanded without limit to include any timbres, any pitches (even sliding and outside of the twelve tones) (between the cracks) (or non pitch noises), any envelope, and any number of voices. In its present form, it generates monodic sine waves. Dang! It only includes pitches, durations, and rhythms. *MY* theory includes EVERYTHING, not only accents, inflections, dynamics, and the likelihood of the performer "clamming" (which adds to the excitement, kind of like a tightrope walker almost falling), but it also includes a formula for gauging emotional response in the listener, prorated according to what he had for lunch, how comfortable his seat is, and whether he really "gets" what the composer was trying to accomplish, among other things. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT
That's the sign of a mature program where the most commonly encountered bugs are either gone or the workarounds are such common knowledge that we don't need to discuss them anymore except occasionally to explain them to newbies. It's been years since I was seriously puzzled by how to do things with Finale! Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: At 12:28 PM 6/3/03 +0100, Steven D Sandiford wrote: Musicality - it's a hard thing to define, but such an easy thing to identify. Sometimes I think I've wandered into the alt.finale.romantic-notions newsgroup. :) Yesterday it was music too fancy to be notated, today it's mysterious musicality. I fear tomorrow will bring Music as Revelation. Okay, okay, I know. But sometimes it does get a wee bit foggy 'round these parts. Dennis ...happy to be working only on electroacoustics today. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale . -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs) OT
Did you know that it [The Grand Unified Music Theory] has already been started? The mathematical expression for the first 7 right hand notes of the Mozart Sonata in C is: sin(2^((48*(step(t-0)-step(t-.8))+52*(step(t-.8)-step(t-1.2))+55*(step(t-1.2 )-step(t-1.6))+47*(step(t-1.6)-step(t-2.2))+48*(step(t-2.2)-step(t-2.3))+50* (step(t-2.3)-step(t-2.4))+48*(step(t-2.4)-step(t-2.8)))/12)*102.7401*t) The formula is in a primitive form, but it illustrates the concept. It can be expanded without limit to include any timbres, any pitches (even sliding and outside of the twelve tones) (between the cracks) (or non pitch noises), any envelope, and any number of voices. In its present form, it generates monodic sine waves. In the formula, t is the time in seconds from the beginning of the music. The step function is 0 for negative values and 1 for positive values. Here it turns the notes on and off at the specified times. The ^ is the power operator, the * is multiplication, the / is division, the + is addition, the - is subtraction. The numbers 48, 52, etc. are the note numbers. 48 is middle C. 52 is 4 notes higher, E. 55 is G, etc. If you use numbers with decimal fractions, you will get pitches in between half tones. For example 48.5 is C raised by a quarter tone. You divide the exponent of 2 by 12 to convert the note numbers into octave numbers. The term 102.7401*t is a composite which generates the correct frequency according to the standard A=440 Hz. It also has 2*Pi as a component. (Pi = 3.1416...) Liudas - Original Message - From: "Christopher BJ Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dennis Bathory-Kitsz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs) OT > At 8:18 AM -0400 6/03/03, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: > >At 12:28 PM 6/3/03 +0100, Steven D Sandiford wrote: > >>Musicality - it's a hard thing to define, but such an easy thing to > >>identify. > > > >Sometimes I think I've wandered into the alt.finale.romantic-notions > >newsgroup. :) > > > >Yesterday it was music too fancy to be notated, today it's mysterious > >musicality. I fear tomorrow will bring Music as Revelation. > > > >Okay, okay, I know. But sometimes it does get a wee bit foggy 'round these > >parts. > > > Warning! Cheesy anecdote ahead! > > Back in my undergrad days I had lunch with one of my theory teachers > and we discussed some interesting research that had been done into > finding out how the brain reacts to different types of music. I said > I thought this might have big implications for theorists and > composers, and he asked me if I thought, some day, we might be able > to identify and analyse every aspect of music as we hear it. I > responded (in my youthful enthusiasm) yes! and he replied, "Well, > then, you are a much more dedicated theorist than I am." > > That conversation affected me deeply. Now I have been working on > (Warning! True section ends, joke ahead!) my Grand Unified Music > Theory, which will reduce all aspects of all music to a simple > formula that will fit on a half-page of paper. One will be able to > understand everything about a piece by simply reading the analysis. > This will eliminate the need to listen to music at all! > > I'm almost finished it, just a few kinks to work out... > > 8-) > ___ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs) OT
At 8:18 AM -0400 6/03/03, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: At 12:28 PM 6/3/03 +0100, Steven D Sandiford wrote: Musicality - it's a hard thing to define, but such an easy thing to identify. Sometimes I think I've wandered into the alt.finale.romantic-notions newsgroup. :) Yesterday it was music too fancy to be notated, today it's mysterious musicality. I fear tomorrow will bring Music as Revelation. Okay, okay, I know. But sometimes it does get a wee bit foggy 'round these parts. Warning! Cheesy anecdote ahead! Back in my undergrad days I had lunch with one of my theory teachers and we discussed some interesting research that had been done into finding out how the brain reacts to different types of music. I said I thought this might have big implications for theorists and composers, and he asked me if I thought, some day, we might be able to identify and analyse every aspect of music as we hear it. I responded (in my youthful enthusiasm) yes! and he replied, "Well, then, you are a much more dedicated theorist than I am." That conversation affected me deeply. Now I have been working on (Warning! True section ends, joke ahead!) my Grand Unified Music Theory, which will reduce all aspects of all music to a simple formula that will fit on a half-page of paper. One will be able to understand everything about a piece by simply reading the analysis. This will eliminate the need to listen to music at all! I'm almost finished it, just a few kinks to work out... 8-) ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs) OT
At 12:28 PM 6/3/03 +0100, Steven D Sandiford wrote: >Musicality - it's a hard thing to define, but such an easy thing to >identify. Sometimes I think I've wandered into the alt.finale.romantic-notions newsgroup. :) Yesterday it was music too fancy to be notated, today it's mysterious musicality. I fear tomorrow will bring Music as Revelation. Okay, okay, I know. But sometimes it does get a wee bit foggy 'round these parts. Dennis ...happy to be working only on electroacoustics today. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs) OT
on 31/5/03 11:04 pm, Mark D. Lew at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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. One of the most technically accomplished percussionists I've known was at my music college - she was spot on, no matter what you put in front of her. However, she was completely missing the "musicality gene" in her makeup - I once remember spotting her tutor chain-smoking and looking seriously wound up, and it turned out he was frustrated by the fact that he had just spent 3/4 hour trying to explain to her that her performance was lacking musicality in the phrasing, and being dumbfounded by her inability to understand such a concept - apparently she kept asking whether she was playing the notes right and at the right time and at the right dynamic, and was herself getting upset at his insistence that she *was* playing everything right but that it was still 'unmusical'... his final retort was that he could get just as musical a performance out of his Atari ST and a Yamaha DX7 (ahem, this was back in the late '80s, when such gear was considered *seriously* high-tech!!). Musicality - it's a hard thing to define, but such an easy thing to identify. BFN Steve Sandiford in sunny Manchester, UK (returning to lurk mode) PS Be warned - I hear she's planning on emigrating to the USA!! ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
