Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Owain Sutton]

David W. Fenton wrote:
On 9 Feb 2005 at 6:40, dhbailey wrote:
A friend of mine who is a professional violinist and violin teacher 
has explained to me the importance of physical memory for the solo 
violinist in regard to intonation as opposed to "having a good ear." 
The point is that hitting those notes accurately in a high position 
is not something you do because you're using your ear to tune them -- 
it happens because you've developed the physical memory to hit them 
on the nose without any thought or any need to adjust after the fact.

It's true that muscle memory is essential.  However, the only way it is 
acquired is, indeed, through repetitive and methodical (i.e. endless!) 
practice, where a 'good ear' is of prime importance.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Darcy James Argue]

On 10 Feb 2005, at 12:26 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 10 Feb 2005 at 0:09, Darcy James Argue wrote:
No, it absolutely does.  Let me try one last time:
"Dog bites man."
"Man bites dog."
What's the difference?  Same three words.  Different meaning.  What
accounts for the difference?
The fact that you've switched two nouns within precisely the same
grammatical structure.
Well, yes.  So, you are agreeing with what I wrote below:
Grammar.  Grammar controls meaning.
You wrote:
And you're not changing the grammar
Uh, never said I was.
-- you're just exchanging one 
noun for another in constructions that are grammatically identical.
Yes, I am exchanging subject and object -- that's a grammatical change. 
 The content -- the words themselves -- are the same.

In other words, you've changed the content while retaining the same
grammatical structure.
Uh, yes.  So you're agreeing with me that it's the grammatical 
structure, and not the content alone, that determines meaning -- right?

Congratulations! You've just made my point!
David, you wrote, earlier today, that "grammar has no signficance in 
the *meaning* of any particular speech or written utterance."

I don't think anything I said supports that point.  Moreover, I don't 
think anything *you* said supports that point.

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[A-NO-NE Music]

Darcy James Argue / 05.2.10 / 00:09 AM wrote:

>No, it absolutely does.  Let me try one last time:
>
>"Dog bites man."
>
>"Man bites dog."
>
>What's the difference?  Same three words.  Different meaning.  What 
>accounts for the difference?
>
>Grammar.  Grammar controls meaning.


Or may be the grammar style is the point.
Japanese and most other Asian languages place verb the last, while
subject is often omitted to avoid redundancy, i.e., "I" and "you" are
taken from the context.

So, in Japanese grammar, above would be:
"The man is, by dog, bitten."
Notice the articles :-)

By the way, this thread is too much reading for me (I usually need to
read a couple times to take in when reading English) and I think I am
totally lost here.  How is this thread relates to Garritan as in Finale?


-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Feb 2005 at 21:14, Richard Yates wrote:

> > No, I'm not using any special meaning.
> >
> > Asterisks are not quotation marks.
> 
> I did not say or infer that they were. You use them for emphasis as if
> saying the same thing louder makes it clearer.
> 
> Which of the dictionary meanings that I quoted applies to your use of
> the term 'musical' in which you say physics has no significance?

None of them.

When I say "musical significance" I mean significance in regard to 
the musical content of a work of music, the musical meaning of the 
work.

You seem to me to be arguing that acoustics are part of the musical 
content of a work of music, where I'm saying that it is only the 
mechanism by which the content is conveyed.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Feb 2005 at 21:11, Richard Yates wrote:

> > > > That doesn't mean grammar has any significance to the meaning of
> > > > any particular utterance (though it certainly *could*).
> > >
> > > If you really believe this then I can only assume that you have a
> > > rather nonstandard definition of 'grammar' in mind. Can you write
> > > some examples of utterances in which you think grammar has no
> > > significance to the meaning? Can you cite any such sentences in
> > > posts to this list?
> >
> > Does the carrier wave of the FM signal on your favorite radio
> > station have any significance to the programming of that radio
> > station?
> 
> Faulty analogy. A carrier wave is constant throughout a broadcast. It
> carries no information except its frequency.

Grammar as a system of structuring communication is constant 
throughout the message, and it's that system that is used to convey 
information.

The grammatical system itself does not convey any information about 
the message.

> Grammar, by contrast, is one means by which meaning is embedded into
> and extracted from sentences. One might even say that, in addition to
> the meanings of the individual words (which in a random order would
> convey no meaningful sentence), grammar is absolutely essential for
> meaning.

Like the carrier wave.

> Perhaps you could choose another analogy, or answer the questions I
> asked to try to ensure no misunderstanding of your use of terms as you
> say has occurred recently.

When I say "grammar" I mean the entire system of grammar, the whole 
set of rules that control whether a collection of words has meaning 
or not.

"Man bites dog" has meaning because it is a grammatical construction.

"Man dog bites" is an ungrammatical construction, and, thus, has no 
meaning.

So, yes, the grammatical *system* is required to construct meaning.

But the system itself is not part of the meaning conveyed.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 10 Feb 2005 at 0:09, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> On 10 Feb 2005, at 12:04 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > On 9 Feb 2005 at 23:58, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> >
> >> On 09 Feb 2005, at 10:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >>
> >>> Physics has no necessary *musical* significance, just has grammar
> >>> has no signficance in the *meaning* of any particular speech or
> >>> written utterance.
> >>
> >> This is so patently, obviously, demonstrably false that if you
> >> continue to assert it, I don't think there's much point in
> >> continuing the conversation.  Grammar -- and I don't mean
> >> "schoolmarm grammar," I mean "combinatorial grammar" -- is
> >> absolutely integral to meaning. Grammar is the *only* thing that
> >> distinguishes the meaning of "Dog bites man" vs. "Man bites dog."
> >
> > Grammar enables the construction of message, yes.
> >
> > But it doesn't control the meaning conveyed.
> 
> No, it absolutely does.  Let me try one last time:
> 
> "Dog bites man."
> 
> "Man bites dog."
> 
> What's the difference?  Same three words.  Different meaning.  What
> accounts for the difference?

The fact that you've switched two nouns within precisely the same 
grammatical structure.

> Grammar.  Grammar controls meaning.

Grammar *encodes* meaning.

And you're not changing the grammar -- you're just exchanging one 
noun for another in constructions that are grammatically identical.

In other words, you've changed the content while retaining the same 
grammatical structure.

Congratulations! You've just made my point!

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Richard Yates]

> No, I'm not using any special meaning.
>
> Asterisks are not quotation marks.

I did not say or infer that they were. You use them for emphasis as if
saying the same thing louder makes it clearer.

Which of the dictionary meanings that I quoted applies to your use of the
term 'musical' in which you say physics has no significance?

RY


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Richard Yates]

> > > That doesn't mean grammar has any significance to the meaning of any
> > > particular utterance (though it certainly *could*).
> >
> > If you really believe this then I can only assume that you have a
> > rather nonstandard definition of 'grammar' in mind. Can you write some
> > examples of utterances in which you think grammar has no significance
> > to the meaning? Can you cite any such sentences in posts to this list?
>
> Does the carrier wave of the FM signal on your favorite radio station
> have any significance to the programming of that radio station?

Faulty analogy. A carrier wave is constant throughout a broadcast. It
carries no information except its frequency.

Grammar, by contrast, is one means by which meaning is embedded into and
extracted from sentences. One might even say that, in addition to the
meanings of the individual words (which in a random order would convey no
meaningful sentence), grammar is absolutely essential for meaning.

Perhaps you could choose another analogy, or answer the questions I asked to
try to ensure no misunderstanding of your use of terms as you say has
occurred recently.



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Darcy James Argue]

On 10 Feb 2005, at 12:04 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 9 Feb 2005 at 23:58, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 09 Feb 2005, at 10:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Physics has no necessary *musical* significance, just has grammar
has no signficance in the *meaning* of any particular speech or
written utterance.
This is so patently, obviously, demonstrably false that if you
continue to assert it, I don't think there's much point in continuing
the conversation.  Grammar -- and I don't mean "schoolmarm grammar," I
mean "combinatorial grammar" -- is absolutely integral to meaning.
Grammar is the *only* thing that distinguishes the meaning of "Dog
bites man" vs. "Man bites dog."
Grammar enables the construction of message, yes.
But it doesn't control the meaning conveyed.
No, it absolutely does.  Let me try one last time:
"Dog bites man."
"Man bites dog."
What's the difference?  Same three words.  Different meaning.  What 
accounts for the difference?

Grammar.  Grammar controls meaning.
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Feb 2005 at 23:58, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> On 09 Feb 2005, at 10:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > Physics has no necessary *musical* significance, just has grammar
> > has no signficance in the *meaning* of any particular speech or
> > written utterance.
> 
> This is so patently, obviously, demonstrably false that if you
> continue to assert it, I don't think there's much point in continuing
> the conversation.  Grammar -- and I don't mean "schoolmarm grammar," I
> mean "combinatorial grammar" -- is absolutely integral to meaning. 
> Grammar is the *only* thing that distinguishes the meaning of "Dog
> bites man" vs. "Man bites dog."

Grammar enables the construction of message, yes.

But it doesn't control the meaning conveyed.

> Obviously,  we do not consciously think about grammar when we speak
> our native language, but that doesn't diminish its significance in the
> slightest.

But it is *still* insignificant, i.e., a background characteristic, 
of the thought being expressed.

That's what I mean by "physics has no musical significance" -- that 
physics has zilch to do with the foreground meaning of a musical 
utterance. It may *enable* the uttering of the thought, but the 
message itself is not "about" physics.

I'm done here.

This is so obvious to me that I don't know how to explain it to 
people who don't see it that way.

Maybe I should suggest that y'all read some Jakobsen (or maybe 
Scholes would be as better place to start).

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Darcy James Argue]

On 09 Feb 2005, at 10:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Physics has no necessary *musical* significance, just has grammar has
no signficance in the *meaning* of any particular speech or written
utterance.
This is so patently, obviously, demonstrably false that if you continue 
to assert it, I don't think there's much point in continuing the 
conversation.  Grammar -- and I don't mean "schoolmarm grammar," I mean 
"combinatorial grammar" -- is absolutely integral to meaning.  Grammar 
is the *only* thing that distinguishes the meaning of "Dog bites man" 
vs. "Man bites dog."

Obviously,  we do not consciously think about grammar when we speak our 
native language, but that doesn't diminish its significance in the 
slightest.

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Re: Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Feb 2005 at 23:27, John Howell wrote:

> At 10:55 PM -0500 2/9/05, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >On 10 Feb 2005 at 11:19, Rudolf van Berkum wrote:
> >
> >>  In the case of the trombones' entry in The Magic Flute that
> >>  Raymond Horton mentioned, we can appreciate that for the Lutheran
> >>  members of the audience in Mozart's day, the sound of the trombone
> >>  would have additional meaning for them because of the association
> >>  with church use, but for most of the audience it would just
> >>  provide a shiver up the spine because of the effectiveness of the
> >>  timbre of the instrument at that dramatic moment.
> >
> >Concerted Catholic church music in Mozart's days was invariably
> >performed with trombones doubling the top 3 vocal parts, so I don't
> >see any reason to limit the association to Lutherans.
> 
> Actually it's the bottom 3 vocal parts, but you're essentially 
> correct. . ..

Wow! What a brain fart! I haven't a clue how I came up with the top 
3, as I was think "alto, tenor and bass trombone!"

Maybe I need to hire a new typist. :)

> . . . Unless I misremember, Austria was Catholic, Mozart wrote
> Masses for Catholic services, and he did NOT write Lutheran cantatas.

Correct.

> I'm not sure where the Austrian Lutherans came from!  That use of
> trombones (or sackbutts) goes back at least to Schuetz, one of whose
> Psalm settings from about 1619 I studied in a graduate seminar, in a
> manuscript with clear indications "con tromboni" and "senza tromboni."

The trombone is also associated with hell (as in Don Giovanni), an 
association that goes way back to at least the 16th century in Italy.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Re: Garritan and other stuff

[John Howell]

At 10:55 PM -0500 2/9/05, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 10 Feb 2005 at 11:19, Rudolf van Berkum wrote:
 In the case of the trombones' entry in The Magic Flute that Raymond
 Horton mentioned, we can appreciate that for the Lutheran members of
 the audience in Mozart's day, the sound of the trombone would have
 additional meaning for them because of the association with church
 use, but for most of the audience it would just provide a shiver up
 the spine because of the effectiveness of the timbre of the instrument
 at that dramatic moment.
Concerted Catholic church music in Mozart's days was invariably
performed with trombones doubling the top 3 vocal parts, so I don't
see any reason to limit the association to Lutherans.
Actually it's the bottom 3 vocal parts, but you're essentially 
correct.  Unless I misremember, Austria was Catholic, Mozart wrote 
Masses for Catholic services, and he did NOT write Lutheran cantatas. 
I'm not sure where the Austrian Lutherans came from!  That use of 
trombones (or sackbutts) goes back at least to Schuetz, one of whose 
Psalm settings from about 1619 I studied in a graduate seminar, in a 
manuscript with clear indications "con tromboni" and "senza tromboni."

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

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Feb 2005 at 19:37, Richard Yates wrote:

> > It seems to me that you are willfully re-reading everything I've
> > written -- I'm talking about *musical* significance, and always have
> > been, and quite clearly.
> 
> There are those asterisks again! . . .

Asterisks are not equal to quotation marks. They are the email 
equivalent of BOLD or ITALICS, but since plain-text email is the only 
accepted format for email, we use *asterisks* as a substitute (just 
as on typewriters, you used underline for what would be in italics in 
a printed book).

> . . . If you have been using the word
> 'musical' in some narrow or obscure way, . . .

No, I'm not using any special meaning.

Asterisks are not quotation marks.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Feb 2005 at 19:28, Richard Yates wrote:

> > That doesn't mean grammar has any significance to the meaning of any
> > particular utterance (though it certainly *could*).
> 
> If you really believe this then I can only assume that you have a
> rather nonstandard definition of 'grammar' in mind. Can you write some
> examples of utterances in which you think grammar has no significance
> to the meaning? Can you cite any such sentences in posts to this list?

Does the carrier wave of the FM signal on your favorite radio station 
have any significance to the programming of that radio station?

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Re: Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 10 Feb 2005 at 11:19, Rudolf van Berkum wrote:

> In the case of the trombones' entry in The Magic Flute that Raymond
> Horton mentioned, we can appreciate that for the Lutheran members of
> the audience in Mozart's day, the sound of the trombone would have
> additional meaning for them because of the association with church
> use, but for most of the audience it would just provide a shiver up
> the spine because of the effectiveness of the timbre of the instrument
> at that dramatic moment.

Concerted Catholic church music in Mozart's days was invariably 
performed with trombones doubling the top 3 vocal parts, so I don't 
see any reason to limit the association to Lutherans.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Feb 2005 at 14:53, John Howell wrote:

> At 10:33 AM -0500 2/9/05, dhbailey wrote:
> >
> >Could you please explain what aspects of physics are in my conscious
> >thought while I'm playing the trumpet?
> >
> >Physics is the science which defines and describes in precise detail
> >the actions and interactions.  I don't concede that we're discussing
> >physics when I tell my student "While holding the trumpet so the
> >mouthpiece is centered on your lips, you blow with sufficient
> >pressure to get your lips to vibrate."
> 
> Bernouli's law, actually, making the lips buzz like any other double
> (or single) reeds.  Same law that holds up both fixed-wing and
> rotary-wing aircraft.  The designer sure as heck needs to understand
> that aspect of physics, while the pilot just needs to know how to use
> it in practice and avoid stalling out.  Which is why the absolutist
> statements in this thread, especially as they relate to words that may
> mean one thing to one person and something else to someone else, are
> not helpful.  The only absolutist statement I accept is this one: It
> Depends!

These facts still have no more musical signifcance than the law of 
gravity. Without it, we'd be hard pressed to make any music at all 
(just as with physics in general), but gravity has nothing to do with 
the musical content of any piece of music whatsoever.

This is so blazingly obvious to me that has left me wholly unable to 
explain the distinction in any way that makes sense to those who 
don't already see the point.

So, I'll just stop after I've finished tonight's messages.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Feb 2005 at 11:19, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:

> At 11:04 AM 2/9/05 -0500, Raymond Horton wrote:
> >(And if everyone ignores this post like they did my one about the
> >overtone series and the pentatonic scale, then I will delete all of
> >yours, too.  Hmmph!)
> 
> Hey, I'm not ignoring it! I was just trying to resist the urge to make
> my no-doubt-anticipated musico-politically incorrect two-finger mouth
> salute over Mozart's incessantly repetitive noodling.

Oh, Dennis, based on that, I'd like to suggest a composer you'd just 
*love*:

Hoffmeister!

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Feb 2005 at 11:04, Raymond Horton wrote:

> In regards to _The Magic Flute_, the background info is interesting,
> but not necessary to enjoying the opera.  The opera is, start to
> finish, some of the most divinely inspired music ever penned by a
> human being, regardless of the story it is hung on.  (To see you
> dismiss it as " a not very good opera" makes me sad for you, David. 
> You should get to hear it from the opera pit like I do, waiting for
> the priests to come onstage so the trombones finally play.  Wonderful
> music to experience, every night.) 

I very clearly said:

Not very good opera.

Brilliant music.

In other words, as an opera, less than the sum of its parts.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Feb 2005 at 6:48, Richard Yates wrote:

> > I don't think anybody has said physics has no significance, just
> > that it is not part of people's conscious thought processes while
> > making music or playing pool.
> 
> My part of this thread has been to respond to the post that said:
> "Physics is involved, but not at any conscious level, and not at any
> significant level".

In context, I was not talking about music. If I had been, I would 
have said "not at any significant *musical* level."

> This says that no aspect of physics is in consciousness when making
> music, and that physics is has no significant role in making music. . . 

No significant *musical* role.

You've taken one line out of its original context and applied it to 
an entirely different context, and that's why you're coming up with a 
nonsensical argument -- because it's one I've never made.

> . . . I
> think that this may have just been sloppy writing (rather than sloppy
> thinking) by the original postert, but people's continuing defense of
> it suggests otherwise.

The sloppiness is on your part for taking something from one context 
and arguing against it in a completely different context.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] 2005b fix

[Allen Fisher]

No. We haven't changed it. The only fix (outside of HP and SmartMusic Marker
PI's) was the insert measure problem.


On 2/9/05 8:45 PM, "Darcy James Argue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I meant "Did Coda post a new build of *FinMac2005b*" -- which I
> downloaded and installed as soon as it was announced.  I ask this
> because Andrew describes a bugfix that isn't actually fixed in *my*
> copy of Fin2005b.
> 
> - Darcy
> -
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Brooklyn, NY
> 
> 
> On 09 Feb 2005, at 8:58 PM, Michael B. Pilgrim wrote:
> 
>> http://www.finalemusic.com/downloads/download_file.asp?id=308
>> 
>>  At 08:54 PM 2/9/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>> 
>> DId Coda post a new build or something?
>> 
>>  - Darcy
>>  -
>>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>  Brooklyn, NY
>> ___
>> Finale mailing list
>> Finale@shsu.edu
>> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
> 
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Feb 2005 at 5:19, Richard Yates wrote:

> > >>Do you consciously think about grammar when you speak?
> > >>Is grammar significant to communication?
> > >>- Darcy
> 
> > Can someone communicate effectively without having consciously
> > learned the rules of grammar specifically (as opposed to picking up
> > general concepts of communication)?  Certainly, children do it all
> > the time!
> 
> Whether children 'consciously' learn grammar or 'pick it up' or have
> it hardwired, the point is that grammar has significance in
> communication. It does not mean that it is everything, but it is
> significant. Darcy's analogy is pointing out the flaw in the position
> that physics has NO significance in music. (By the way, children's
> speech is grammar-ridden from as soon as they string enough words
> together to have a grammar).

Again, you're arguing against something I've never proposed. 

Physics has no necessary *musical* significance, just has grammar has 
no signficance in the *meaning* of any particular speech or written 
utterance. It may enable the encoding of meaning, and is therefore a 
prerequisite for the communication to be happening in the first 
place. But that is not the same kind of significance as I've been 
talking about. That kind of significance is, to me, trivial -- it's 
so basic as to be uninteresting in and of itself, and it doesn't have 
anything to do with the foreground meaning of the message being sent.

Of course, it *can* have foreground significance. Some poetry plays 
around with the rules of grammar at a foreground level, just as 
Andrew has pointed out at least one piece where he claims some 
acoustical rules have been foregrounded by the composer.

But that's only a choice a composer or writer can make, which it 
seems to me makes the medium into the message.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Richard Yates]

> It seems to me that you are willfully re-reading everything I've
> written -- I'm talking about *musical* significance, and always have
> been, and quite clearly.

There are those asterisks again! If you have been using the word 'musical'
in some narrow or obscure way, then it is incumbent on you to clarify your
usage when it seems you are being misunderstood. The dictionary says:

Musical:
1. Of, relating to, or capable of producing music.
2. Characteristic of or resembling music; melodious.
3. Set to or accompanied by music.
4. Devoted to or skilled in music.

If you mean something else by it then please set out your definition.

RY


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Feb 2005 at 6:40, dhbailey wrote:

> Darcy James Argue wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> > 
> > Both a human and a pool-playing robot (like, say, Deep Green --
> > http://www.ece.queensu.ca/hpages/faculty/greenspan/) have to solve
> > exactly the same problem, which happens to be a problem of applied
> > physics.
> > 
> > So one solves it with neurons and one solves it with silicon.  What
> > makes you so sure the process is so fundamentally different?
> 
> Rather than simply calling it "solving it with neurons," the human is
> really solving it with knowledge based on experience gained from long
> periods of practice and the robot solves it with equations and
> numbers, none of which it gained from experience.  That the result may
> be the same in no way guarantees that the principles in the solving of
> the problem are the same.

A friend of mine who is a professional violinist and violin teacher 
has explained to me the importance of physical memory for the solo 
violinist in regard to intonation as opposed to "having a good ear." 
The point is that hitting those notes accurately in a high position 
is not something you do because you're using your ear to tune them -- 
it happens because you've developed the physical memory to hit them 
on the nose without any thought or any need to adjust after the fact.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Feb 2005 at 6:33, dhbailey wrote:

> Christopher Smith wrote:
> 
> > On Feb 8, 2005, at 7:52 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> > 
> >>  I just pointed
> >> out that if the music is incomprehensible without reference to
> >> outside information that is not musical in nature, then it's not
> >> very good music.
> > 
> > Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree there. I don't know
> > of very much art that DOESN'T require cartloads of outside
> > information to understand or enjoy it.
> > 
> > I'm glad just the same to finally understand your point, even if I
> > don't agree with it.
> 
> I agree with David Fenton here -- if a casual listener can't just hear
> a piece of music and enjoy it without any exposure to anything other
> than that piece of music, then it isn't very good music. . . .

Er, that's not at all what I've been arguing.

That would be analogous to this situation:

1. you speak English but not German.

2. someone gives you a poem of Goethe to read.

3. you can't understand it, so you declare it a terrible poem, since 
you have to learn this bloody German language in order to understand 
it.

That's crazy, and I'm sure you'd agree.

Some music is written in styles that a listener is not familiar with 
and simply won't know how to listen to. It may take more than one 
listening, or, even, a *lecture* (HORRORS) before they start to 
understand and appreciate what the piece of music has to say.

But that's not the same thing as requiring "external information" to 
understand the work of art. It's simply a matter of learning the 
"language" in which the art work is created in order to have a hope 
of understanding it.

Now, if the person who speaks German very well and has read quite a 
bit of poetry reads the poem and finds it to be gibberish, or 
internally inconsistent, then *that's* like what I've been arguing 
about in regards to the consonance/dissonance argument. For a piece 
of music to convey meaning via consonance and dissonance, the 
differences between the two must be demonstrated within the piece of 
music itself.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Richard Yates]

> That doesn't mean grammar has any significance to the meaning of any
> particular utterance (though it certainly *could*).

If you really believe this then I can only assume that you have a rather
nonstandard definition of 'grammar' in mind. Can you write some examples of
utterances in which you think grammar has no significance to the meaning?
Can you cite any such sentences in posts to this list?

RY


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Re: Finale Digest, Vol 19, Issue 16

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Feb 2005 at 10:40, Ken Moore wrote:

> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> David W.
> Fenton  writes: >Well, now you're in a whole different set of issues,
> none of which >are fundamental to the meaning and comprehensibility of
> music.
> 
> I'm not sure that I understand your use of the terms "meaning" and
> "comprehensibility".  I would expect "meaning" to relate to
> non-musical matters while "comprehensibility" would be concerned with
> the listeners recognition of audible patterns and the relationships
> among them.

There can be no meaning conveyed without comprehensibility.

Plenty of music has meaning with absolutely no non-musical external 
references. We may not be able to verbalize exactly what that meaning 
may be, and we may not all agree on the exact meaning, but the 
meaning is, in fact, there in the music.

> >> And BTW, it's not up to you to decide whether J's music is very
> >> good or not. On that point, the verdict of history is in, long
> >> since.
> >
> >I never claimed the right to make any such decision. I just pointed
> >out that if the music is incomprehensible without reference to
> >outside information that is not musical in nature, then it's not very
> > good music.
> 
> If by "comprehensibility" you mean the same as I do, then I agree.
> OTOH, I don't see how you could get any grasp on "meaning" (which is
> very tenuous concept in music, IMO) without reference to outside
> information.

Well, technically speaking, yes, you're right that most pieces of 
music are comprehensible only as part of a group of pieces that are 
in a particular musical style.

But I would say that is different music which artifically defines 
certain intervals to be consonant and others to be dissonant, while 
never actually treating any of those intervals differently in the 
musical text. That's what I meant by externality -- the music does 
not behave in any way that has that demonstrates that particular 
meaning, as it is only by reference to external rules that you can 
know which intervals are consonant and which are dissonant. And that 
kind of information is non-musical in nature, as it is just a set of 
rules, rules that the music itself does not demonstrate or allow to 
be discovered from it.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 8 Feb 2005 at 22:07, Richard Yates wrote:

> > Do you consciously think about grammar when you speak?
> > Is grammar significant to communication?
> > - Darcy
> 
> Oooh, good one!

No, it's the same question as before, and the answer is that it is 
significant to *enabling* it, but does not necessarily 

In radio you have a carrier wave, which is like grammar in speech.

But the actual signal is the message.

In music, the acoustical underpinnings may very well be the carrier 
wave, the fundamental ether by which the communication is enabled, 
but it isn't the message itself.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Feb 2005 at 0:27, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> 
> On 08 Feb 2005, at 7:30 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > On 8 Feb 2005 at 1:31, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> 
> >> Please explain how you would build a pool-playing robot without
> >> including some sort of physics module in the AI.
> >
> > A human pool player is not a pool-playing robot.
> >
> > And that's the whole point.
> 
> Both a human and a pool-playing robot (like, say, Deep Green -- 
> http://www.ece.queensu.ca/hpages/faculty/greenspan/) have to solve
> exactly the same problem, which happens to be a problem of applied
> physics.
> 
> So one solves it with neurons and one solves it with silicon.  What
> makes you so sure the process is so fundamentally different?

Because either way, it has nothing to do with the *art* of the game.

> > Your observation applies to *any* human action. I'm typing right
> > now, which involves the physics of the design of my computer
> > keyboard, as well as calculation of movements of my hands and arms
> > and so forth.
> >
> > But that's trivial, and not a significant part of the act of typing.
> >
> > And if physics is not significant to typing, how can it be
> > significant to art?
> 
> Do you consciously think about grammar when you speak?
> 
> Is grammar significant to communication?

It's axiomatic in that enables speech to carry information.

That doesn't means grammar has any significance to the meaning of any 
particular utterance (though it certainly *could*).

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 8 Feb 2005 at 20:37, Richard Yates wrote:

[quoting me replying to himself:]
> > > When I am practicing I am consciously applying principles and
> > > solving problems in physics such as conservation of momentum,
> > > distribution of forces, and lengths and angles of of compund
> > > levers. Knowing those principles of physics has helped make my
> > > learning of the movements more efficient. That all of this
> > > eventually becomes unconscious (or at least out of present
> > > awareness) through practice in no way negates the importance of
> > > physics.
> >
> > But it doesn't make them *signficant* to making music -- it's
> > technique, not music. Yes, technique is essential to mastery of the
> > music, but you can have all the technique in the world and produce
> > nothing of musical significance.
> 
> A weak rhetorical dodge because, conversely, with no technique at all
> you produce no music at all. The difference in our positions is not so
> symmetrical, however. You have been claiming that physics has NO
> significance while I say that it has SOME significance.

No, I have said physics has no *musical* significance.

The frame of the Mona Lisa does not alter its artistic significance 
(though it may certainly change our perceptions of it), but without 
the frame and framework behind the canvas, it couldn't exist (unless, 
of course, it's painted on a wood panel or some such, which doesn't 
really change my point). I would say it makes no significant 
contribution to the impact or meaning of the artwork, even though it 
is a necessary element of the work. It is just an element of no 
artistic significance.

> > I guess I think about music in an entirely different fashion than
> > most people do. That might explain why I find much of what I hear
> > produced by musicians so incredibly lacking in basic musicianship.
> > Maybe they're all thinking about angular momentum, levers and
> > distribution of forces instead of thinking about phrasing and
> > expression and dynamics and balance and agogics.
> 
> We have all heard them, too. But it is not logical to conclude that,
> because they think only of physics, that physics has no significance
> in music. Do you also think that, because there are uninspiring
> recipe-bound cooks, chemistry has no significance in cooking?

It seems to me that you are willfully re-reading everything I've 
written -- I'm talking about *musical* significance, and always have 
been, and quite clearly.

And I also would say that even when stripped down to what you are 
saying I've said, the significance of physics to music is rather 
axiomatic, rather like the importance of gravity to flying and 
airplane. Absent gravity, none of our airplanes would work, but 
that's axiomatic to the whole system on which the whole system we use 
for building airplanes is built. It's so basic as to be trivial. I 
could be an interesting study in and of itself, yet still have very 
little significance to an actual pilot.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] TAN Magic Flute (was Garritan and other stuff)

[David W. Fenton]

On 8 Feb 2005 at 19:38, Mark D Lew wrote:

> On Feb 8, 2005, at 6:05 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > No one is a bigger fan of Mozart than I am. But I have always felt
> > that the Magic Flute is incoherent *as an opera* (or Singspiel,
> > technically speaking, I guess). If it did not have some of the most
> > glorious music ever written, it would be a failure. But so far as I
> > can tell, it's really just a string of great tunes held together by
> > a rather incomprehensible narrative. That's not great opera, though
> > it may very well include some of the greatest music ever written.
> 
> I'm actually not a big fan of Magic Flute, but I think its greatness
> is undeniable in spite of my own taste.  I was arguing the case that
> that greatness is not dependent on understanding the Masonic
> symbolism.  And yes, I think it does work *as an opera*.

Well, if you don't require understandable character motivations, or 
any kind of explanation of why the characters go through the events 
they experience, then I guess you can get by without knowing the 
Masonic symbolism.

But I don't consider that to be viable as opera *by itself*.

Can one enjoy The Magic Flute without knowing about the Masonic 
background? Sure! One can enjoy any kind of nonsense for any personal 
reasons whatsoever -- it's called personal taste.

But that's a very personal, individual response, based on what one 
brings to the work, not what happens to be in the work itself.

Which is fine, but I don't think The Magic Flute stands alone as 
coherent without the outside information. I think it would be a 
stronger, more accessible piece if it were not dependent on that 
outside information for explaining why things happen the way they do.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] 2005b fix

[Darcy James Argue]

I meant "Did Coda post a new build of *FinMac2005b*" -- which I 
downloaded and installed as soon as it was announced.  I ask this 
because Andrew describes a bugfix that isn't actually fixed in *my* 
copy of Fin2005b.

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 09 Feb 2005, at 8:58 PM, Michael B. Pilgrim wrote:
http://www.finalemusic.com/downloads/download_file.asp?id=308
 At 08:54 PM 2/9/2005 -0500, you wrote:
DId Coda post a new build or something?
 - Darcy
 -
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Brooklyn, NY
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Richard Yates]

> Bernouli's law, actually, making the lips buzz like any other double
> (or single) reeds.  Same law that holds up both fixed-wing and
> rotary-wing aircraft.  > John

I cannot believe that someone else also mentioned Bernoulli! By the way, I
heard somewhere recently that the relative force of Bernoulli effect is now
seen as less significant than the simple pressure on the underside of the
wing from the positive angle of attack.

But I digress. You aren't saying that physics actually has anything to do
with flying a plane are you?!?

Richard Yates


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Richard Yates]

> Could you please explain what aspects of physics are in my conscious
> thought while I'm playing the trumpet?

You are calculating the air pressures necessary using Bernoulli's Principle
and the modulus of elasticity of skin as it relates to the natural
vibrational frequency of the air column from your larynx to your lips - and
don't you dare try to deny it!

Seriously, perhaps you could ask that question of either: 1) someone in the
vicinity at the time, say, yourself, for instance, or 2) someone who has
said that there are aspects of physics in your conscious thought then. I fit
neither of these categories.

Richard Yates


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] 2005b fix

[Michael B. Pilgrim]

http://www.finalemusic.com/downloads/download_file.asp?id=308

At 08:54 PM 2/9/2005 -0500, you wrote:
DId Coda post a new build or something?

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] 2005b fix

[Darcy James Argue]

Really?  This visual bug *still* isn't fixed for me (MacFin2005b).  The 
little "unsaved" circle inside the red OS X "close" widget in the title 
bar doesn't go away when you save changes either.

I assume you're on a Mac?  When did you download MacFin2005b?  DId Coda 
post a new build or something?

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 09 Feb 2005, at 8:25 PM, Andrew Levin wrote:
Small thing, but now when you save an open file in Finale 2005b the
icon goes from being greyed out to being, well, not greyed out. Yeah!
Andrew Levin
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] 2005b fix

[Andrew Levin]

Small thing, but now when you save an open file in Finale 2005b the
icon goes from being greyed out to being, well, not greyed out. Yeah!
Andrew Levin
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Re: Garritan and other stuff

[Rudolf van Berkum]

Ken Moore commented:
>If by "comprehensibility" you mean the same as I do, then I agree.OTOH, I
don't see how you could get any grasp on "meaning" (which is very tenuous
concept in music,   >IMO) without reference to outside information.

in response to David Bailey:

>I never claimed the right to make any such decision. I just pointed out
that if the music is incomprehensible without reference to outside
information that is not musical in>nature, then it's not very good
music.


My take on this is that music is meaningful without resorting to
extra-musical references. "Meaning" is a tenuous concept in music because of
the weak analogy to language. Music and language are both sign systems, but
that doesn't mean that music is a language. Yeah, I know--music is the
international language. Hooey!

I disagree with David Fenton's observation that the perfect fifth is a
musical phoneme as it conflates the semantics of the two sign systems (and I
think a phoneme is meaningful). Umberto Eco observed a long time ago that
music may have syntax, but the semantic component is problematic. In the
case of music that uses functional harmony it is more straightforward: the
phrase is meaningful when we get to a cadence; but we're delving into an
area that is more the provenance of aesthetics.

In the case of the trombones' entry in The Magic Flute that Raymond Horton
mentioned, we can appreciate that for the Lutheran members of the audience
in Mozart's day, the sound of the trombone would have additional meaning for
them because of the association with church use, but for most of the
audience it would just provide a shiver up the spine because of the
effectiveness of the timbre of the instrument at that dramatic moment.
Whether it be harmonic progressions or effective use of instrumental timbre,
the music is meaningful to the members of the audience without reference to
outside information.

Regards,

Rudi vB.




___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Lyric problem (Mac)

[MacMusicInc]

Two companies I work for use Times Semibold font for lyrics. I'm using Mac Finale 2004c and Mac OS 10.3.5 on a G4 powerbook. I've always used "1. Xxx" at the beginning of the verses with an "option space" to hold everything together as one syllable. In F2004c Times Semibold looks fine on the screen but prints out with no space. When I try other fonts it works fine. Does anyone know what the problem might be?

David McDonald
MacMusic, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Mark D Lew]

On Feb 9, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Since he dangle his grammatical temporal dongle, I wonder if he'd 
clarify
if he meant the fame from the late 18th century on, or the composer 
from
the late 18th century on.
Ah, now I see the confusion.  I assumed he meant fame from the late 
18th century on.  The parenthetic seems to support that, since the idea 
of great works having permanent value would be relevant to perception 
of an artist's greatness, not to an artist's birth.

mdl
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 03:01 PM 2/9/05 -0800, Mark D Lew wrote:
>How do you figure only "a few decades"?  As I understand it, he is 
>saying:
>- Any composer born in 1630 who was considered great in 1780 maintained 
>his reputation 1780-2005.

[...]

He said:
>From the late 18th c. on (that is, since the 
>time when the idea took hold that great works of art have permanent 
>value), I cannot think of a single composer, in any genre, who having 
>been considered great at the age of 150, came to be considered 
>insignificant, or even minor, at any later time.

Since he dangle his grammatical temporal dongle, I wonder if he'd clarify
if he meant the fame from the late 18th century on, or the composer from
the late 18th century on.

Dennis



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Mark D Lew]

On Feb 9, 2005, at 1:01 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:
For composers of "age of 150", the limiting date is 1855.  So your 
description actually focuses on a few decades of composition, and on 
those composers' current reputation.  It neither proves nor 
demonstrates anything.
How do you figure only "a few decades"?  As I understand it, he is 
saying:

- Any composer born in 1630 who was considered great in 1780 maintained 
his reputation 1780-2005.
- Any composer born in 1650 who was considered great in 1800 maintained 
his reputation 1800-2005.
- Any composer born in 1700 who was considered great in 1850 maintained 
his reputation 1850-2005.
- Any composer born in 1750 who was considered great in 1900 maintained 
his reputation 1900-2005.
- Any composer born in 1800 who was considered great in 1950 maintained 
his reputation 1950-2005.
- etc.

Based on that pattern, he feels safe in asserting that Janacek, who was 
born in 1854 and considered great in 2004, will maintain his 
reputation.

If Andrew's claim is true -- and so far no one has suggested a 
counterexample -- then it looks like a pretty significant trend to me.

mdl
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Mark D Lew]

On Feb 9, 2005, at 12:02 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
First of all, Janacek is not "an opera composer"--he wrote important 
music in a wide variety of genres, and even were all his operas to be 
forgotten the remaining body of work would be more than sufficient to 
maintain his standing as a major composer.
Thanks.  I gathered that from one of the other posts as well.  My 
background is overwhelmingly from the world of opera, and that's the 
only way I knew Janacek.

As to your other point, From the late 18th c. on (that is, since the 
time when the idea took hold that great works of art have permanent 
value), I cannot think of a single composer, in any genre, who having 
been considered great at the age of 150, came to be considered 
insignificant, or even minor, at any later time.

Composers, living or dead, do tend to go out of fashion around age 75. 
Formerly, this led inexorably to oblivion, but since ca. 1780, those 
of lasting merit get rehabilitated after a few decades in the 
doghouse. As far as I can see, this is a one-time, one-way process.
I assume that by "age of 150" you mean 150 years after birth*.  When I 
wrote the first post I thought I had examples, but now that I do the 
math, I find the ones I had in mind went out of fashion around age 
75-100 and thus don't meet your test.  I'll ponder this a bit and let 
you know if I can think of any others.  If I can't, I'll assume you're 
right and I was wrong.

mdl
*At first I found it odd that you're counting age from the birth of the 
composer rather than the composition of the music, but now that I'm 
thinking of examples, the pattern does seem to work out that way, 
doesn't it?  I wonder why that is.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 03:48 PM 2/9/05 -0500, Christopher Smith wrote:
>
>On Wednesday, February 9, 2005, at 03:02  PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
>> I cannot think of a single composer, in any genre, who having been 
>> considered great at the age of 150, came to be considered 
>> insignificant, or even minor, at any later time.
>>
>> Composers, living or dead, do tend to go out of fashion around age 75. 
>> Formerly, this led inexorably to oblivion, but since ca. 1780, those 
>> of lasting merit get rehabilitated after a few decades in the 
>> doghouse. As far as I can see, this is a one-time, one-way process.
>>
>
>That is an astonishing concept! (And I don't mean that badly, I just 
>had never heard it before!) It takes a musicologist with a huge amount 
>of study and information to be able to see a trend like that and 
>express it so clearly. Maybe I am so impressed because I can't do that, 
>but I am impressed just the same.

There's nothing astonishing about it. Considering that key phrase "since
ca. 1780, those of lasting merit get rehabilitated after a few decades in
the doghouse," that means nothing is especially provable as we're hardly
150 years past the rehabilitation of anybody, much less the wholesale
rehabilitation that came in the mid-19th century with the birth of musicology.

Plus, it's investment and recycling of the past, and you've already heard
my p.o.v. on that one -- the creeping "greatness" of the past.

Dennis


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Owain Sutton]

Christopher Smith wrote:
On Wednesday, February 9, 2005, at 03:02  PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
I cannot think of a single composer, in any genre, who having been 
considered great at the age of 150, came to be considered 
insignificant, or even minor, at any later time.

Composers, living or dead, do tend to go out of fashion around age 75. 
Formerly, this led inexorably to oblivion, but since ca. 1780, those 
of lasting merit get rehabilitated after a few decades in the 
doghouse. As far as I can see, this is a one-time, one-way process.


For composers of "age of 150", the limiting date is 1855.  So your 
description actually focuses on a few decades of composition, and on 
those composers' current reputation.  It neither proves nor demonstrates 
anything.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Christopher Smith]

On Wednesday, February 9, 2005, at 03:02  PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
I cannot think of a single composer, in any genre, who having been 
considered great at the age of 150, came to be considered 
insignificant, or even minor, at any later time.

Composers, living or dead, do tend to go out of fashion around age 75. 
Formerly, this led inexorably to oblivion, but since ca. 1780, those 
of lasting merit get rehabilitated after a few decades in the 
doghouse. As far as I can see, this is a one-time, one-way process.

That is an astonishing concept! (And I don't mean that badly, I just 
had never heard it before!) It takes a musicologist with a huge amount 
of study and information to be able to see a trend like that and 
express it so clearly. Maybe I am so impressed because I can't do that, 
but I am impressed just the same.

Christopher
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Physics in music

[Christopher Smith]

On Wednesday, February 9, 2005, at 12:42  PM, Phil Daley wrote:
At 2/9/2005 11:54 AM, Chuck Israels wrote:
I am acutely aware of the physics involved in music - always, albeit 
at a subconscious level that some might describe as trivial.

As I am planning sounds - is the piano lid open or closed, French 
Horns face backward and spread their sound, gut strings sound 
different than steel, French double reed players adjust the reeds to 
make a different sound, etc.  To me this is physics.  It has become 
intuitive, but it's still physics.  It is a also a matter of 
psycho-acoustics that leads those who want to write "non-harmonic" 
music to eschew powerful bass notes whose overtones are in the most 
sensitive part of human hearing so that they tend to lead the 
listener to hear harmony.  To me, that's physics too, and ignorance 
of it would not improve my music.  My 2c.
That's sounds like a "composer" perspective to me.
I thought we were talking about performers?
In jazz, the line between composing and performing is blurred. It's for 
this reason that I am not really "getting" this discussion at all.


But, some performers have to do a lot more thinking about the physics 
of sound than others.

I think so, too.

Which leads into one of my most favorite rehearsal stories:
Heh, heh, very good!
Christopher
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

RE: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Andrew Stiller]

 >What modern composer IS known outside of academic circles?
Steve Reich, John Adams, and, in particular, Phillip Glass. 

Stu
To these I would add Crumb, Ligeti, and Riley, at the very least.
I would suggest further that any composer whose work has been 
featured on a national broadcast--especially a TV broadcast--or who 
has been programmed in a subscription concert of one of the big five 
orchestras can hardly be considered to be "unknown outside of 
academic circles." The names of such composers are legion.

--
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Andrew Stiller]

  Andrew suggested that history's verdict on Janacek is "long since" 
in.  I think it's way too soon to say that.  I can think of a dozen 
opera composers who were considered great 75 years after their death 
but were discarded by history 50 years later.  (Plus a few more who 
were great for a century, then discarded for a century, and then 
revived again.)  Maybe Janacek will join them, or maybe he won't. 
But I don't think history has had its final say on him yet.

mdl
First of all, Janacek is not "an opera composer"--he wrote important 
music in a wide variety of genres, and even were all his operas to be 
forgotten the remaining body of work would be more than sufficient to 
maintain his standing as a major composer.

As to your other point, From the late 18th c. on (that is, since the 
time when the idea took hold that great works of art have permanent 
value), I cannot think of a single composer, in any genre, who having 
been considered great at the age of 150, came to be considered 
insignificant, or even minor, at any later time.

Composers, living or dead, do tend to go out of fashion around age 
75. Formerly, this led inexorably to oblivion, but since ca. 1780, 
those of lasting merit get rehabilitated after a few decades in the 
doghouse. As far as I can see, this is a one-time, one-way process.

--
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[John Howell]

At 10:33 AM -0500 2/9/05, dhbailey wrote:
Could you please explain what aspects of physics are in my conscious 
thought while I'm playing the trumpet?

Physics is the science which defines and describes in precise detail 
the actions and interactions.  I don't concede that we're discussing 
physics when I tell my student "While holding the trumpet so the 
mouthpiece is centered on your lips, you blow with sufficient 
pressure to get your lips to vibrate."
Bernouli's law, actually, making the lips buzz like any other double 
(or single) reeds.  Same law that holds up both fixed-wing and 
rotary-wing aircraft.  The designer sure as heck needs to understand 
that aspect of physics, while the pilot just needs to know how to use 
it in practice and avoid stalling out.  Which is why the absolutist 
statements in this thread, especially as they relate to words that 
may mean one thing to one person and something else to someone else, 
are not helpful.  The only absolutist statement I accept is this one: 
It Depends!

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

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Darcy James Argue]

On 09 Feb 2005, at 7:07 AM, dhbailey wrote:
Richard Yates wrote:
Do you consciously think about grammar when you speak?
Is grammar significant to communication?
- Darcy
Oooh, good one!
Can someone communicate effectively without having consciously learned 
the rules of grammar specifically (as opposed to picking up general 
concepts of communication)?  Certainly, children do it all the time!
That was kind of my point, David.
[Except that children don't "pick up general concepts of communication" 
-- they learn language by fitting the incoming linguistic data into 
their innate concept of grammatical strucutre.  Children notice and 
apply rules like "the regular plural form in English adds an "s" to the 
end of the word" long before they have the linguistic and cognitive 
tools to explain what they are doing.  If children had to start from 
zero and simply deduce the existence of language, then words, then 
combinatorial grammar, then nouns and verbs and modifiers, then the 
specific grammatical rules of their native language, they'd never learn 
to speak.]

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Physics in music

[Phil Daley]

At 2/9/2005 11:54 AM, Chuck Israels wrote:
I am acutely aware of the physics involved in music - always, albeit at a 
subconscious level that some might describe as trivial.

As I am planning sounds - is the piano lid open or closed, French Horns 
face backward and spread their sound, gut strings sound different than 
steel, French double reed players adjust the reeds to make a different 
sound, etc.  To me this is physics.  It has become intuitive, but it's 
still physics.  It is a also a matter of psycho-acoustics that leads those 
who want to write "non-harmonic" music to eschew powerful bass notes whose 
overtones are in the most sensitive part of human hearing so that they 
tend to lead the listener to hear harmony.  To me, that's physics too, and 
ignorance of it would not improve my music.  My 2c.
That's sounds like a "composer" perspective to me.
I thought we were talking about performers?
But, some performers have to do a lot more thinking about the physics of 
sound than others.

Which leads into one of my most favorite rehearsal stories:
The asst conductor of the concert band is filling in on percussion, because 
the conductor's choices have lots of percussion parts.

The conductor in question is Vaclav Nelhlybel.
I don't remember the piece, but the crescendos were not meeting his standard.
He gave a short lecture to the band about playing to 100% of their ability 
at some particular point in the score.

So, the next time that point approached, the asst conductor started 
"warming up the gong" which he was playing. This was prior to any actual 
note being played on the gong.

When the high point hit, he gave that gong a Roger Maris swing.
Of course, the sound then goes from very loud to deafening over the course 
of a minute.

Vaclav is waving his arms to cut everyone off, but anyone who was not 
watching didn't have a clue that the band had stopped playing because you 
couldn't hear anything but the gong.

It took about 3 minutes for the gong to stop ringing, at which point Vaclav 
says, pointing to the gong player:

"From you, I only need 75%."
Phil Daley  < AutoDesk >
http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Fin another long time question

[Christopher Smith]

On Wednesday, February 9, 2005, at 11:33  AM, Raymond Horton wrote:
A-NO-NE Music wrote:
I hope my erratic grammar passes for communication here :-)
Seriously, I wish if I had any talent in linguistics.  I just don't 
have
a heart for it.

Do not about it worry.
That's the kind of tomfoolery up with which I will not put!  8-)
Christopher
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff - Magic Flute

[Raymond Horton]

Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Hey, I'm not ignoring it! I was just trying to resist the urge to make my
no-doubt-anticipated musico-politically incorrect two-finger mouth salute
over Mozart's incessantly repetitive noodling.
 

I feel for you, too, Dennis. 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Physics in music

[Chuck Israels]

I am acutely aware of the physics involved in music - always, albeit at a subconscious level that some might describe as trivial.

As I am planning sounds - is the piano lid open or closed, French Horns face backward and spread their sound, gut strings sound different than steel, French double reed players adjust the reeds to make a different sound, etc.  To me this is physics.  It has become intuitive, but it's still physics.  It is a also a matter of psycho-acoustics that leads those who want to write "non-harmonic" music to eschew powerful bass notes whose overtones are in the most sensitive part of human hearing so that they tend to lead the listener to hear harmony.  To me, that's physics too, and ignorance of it would not improve my music.  My 2c.

Chuck



Chuck Israels
230 North Garden Terrace
Bellingham, WA 98225-5836
phone (360) 671-3402
fax (360) 676-6055
www.chuckisraels.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Fin another long time question

[Raymond Horton]

A-NO-NE Music wrote:
I hope my erratic grammar passes for communication here :-)
Seriously, I wish if I had any talent in linguistics.  I just don't have
a heart for it.
 

Do not about it worry.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 11:04 AM 2/9/05 -0500, Raymond Horton wrote:
>(And if everyone ignores this post like they did my one about the 
>overtone series and the pentatonic scale, then I will delete all of 
>yours, too.  Hmmph!)

Hey, I'm not ignoring it! I was just trying to resist the urge to make my
no-doubt-anticipated musico-politically incorrect two-finger mouth salute
over Mozart's incessantly repetitive noodling.

That the response you were looking for? Bet not. :)

Dennis


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Title pages & Text block manager

[Jari Williamsson]

d. collins wrote:
Jari Williamsson écrit:
For now, the workaround is to right-click on the text block in TBM and 
use "Copy to other document...", available in the 0.18 betas. This can 
copy the text block directly to other opened documents (without going 
though the TBM Clipboard).

I was just going to say that this is a great time saver, but after 
trying it out, it seems rather weird:

I copied my title page text block to other opened documents after 
inserting a blank page. But then the text block appears on each and 
every page of the score (I printed out two of them before noticing 
this)! I looked at the attributes, and each text block is attached to a 
single page. So I tried deleting the text blocks on the following pages, 
but as soon as I remove one, they all go. I'm completely lost!
I can confirm! I'll try to fix this later today and e-mail you a new 
build privately.

Best regards,
Jari Williamsson
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Raymond Horton]

I have a good perspective on questions such as these, playing music of 
all kinds, and spending a fair amount of my career in opera and ballet 
pits.  Sometimes I have almost no knowledge of the story going on 
onstage (I can almost never see anything) so I experience the music 
only.  Sometimes I know a great deal about the music, story, background, 
etc. 

The answer to what you are discussing is quite simple - sometimes the 
background matters, sometimes it doesn't.  Sometimes it helps a great 
deal, sometimes a little, sometimes not a bit.  It depends on the work 
and the background.

In regards to _The Magic Flute_, the background info is interesting, but 
not necessary to enjoying the opera.  The opera is, start to finish, 
some of the most divinely inspired music ever penned by a human being, 
regardless of the story it is hung on.  (To see you dismiss it as " a 
not very good opera" makes me sad for you, David.  You should get to 
hear it from the opera pit like I do, waiting for the priests to come 
onstage so the trombones finally play.  Wonderful music to experience, 
every night.)  The story, with or without the Masonic background, is 
just a simple tale of good and evil.  That opera we do in a small hall 
in which I CAN watch the singers, especially during the rehearsals.  
Last time we had a great cast, and it was a real treat every day.

If one has never seen the gorgeous Ingmar Bergman movie, that is a 
great way to experience it.  (It's on DVD.)  Masonic background not needed.

(And if everyone ignores this post like they did my one about the 
overtone series and the pentatonic scale, then I will delete all of 
yours, too.  Hmmph!)

Raymond Horton
Louisville Orchestra
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 8 Feb 2005 at 13:06, Andrew Stiller wrote:
 

And to get the point of the music, do you need to know this about the
origins of the idea?
If not, then it's not very important musically, in my opinion.
If so, then it's probably not very good music to begin with.
--
 

David W. Fenton
Depends what you consider important to know about different 
composers' styles. Is is important to know that Beethoven was 
influenced by French revolutionary composers? . . .
   

To get the point? Absolutely not!
 

. . . Is it important to know
that _The Magic Flute_ is full of Masonic symbolism? . . .
   

Perhaps, because otherwise, it's fairly incoherent. I would say that 
proves that it's not a very good opera.
 

...
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[dhbailey]

Richard Yates wrote:
I don't think anybody has said physics has no significance, just that it
is not part of people's conscious thought processes while making music
or playing pool.

My part of this thread has been to respond to the post that said: "Physics
is involved, but not at any conscious level,
and not at any significant level".
This says that no aspect of physics is in consciousness when making music,
and that physics is has no significant role in making music. I think that
this may have just been sloppy writing (rather than sloppy thinking) by the
original postert, but people's continuing defense of it suggests otherwise.

I know I'm not thinking about frequencies, nor the complex formula
needed to calculate the exact frequency I need to go to when I need to
leap a tritone and an octave.

Of course you are not. But that is a straw man argument. It is trivial to
select any aspect of physics sufficiently abstract to play no part in
consciousness. You probably do not think of quarks and hadrons, either. But
to say that you do not think about some aspect of physics when you make
music is not the same as saying that you think of no aspect of physics.
You could even try to take the same position about music theory. You could
easily select some aspect of music theory that plays no part in
consciousness when you make music, but wouldn't it seem odd to then claim
that music theory "is involved, but not at any significant level."?
Could you please explain what aspects of physics are in my conscious 
thought while I'm playing the trumpet?

Physics is the science which defines and describes in precise detail the 
actions and interactions.  I don't concede that we're discussing physics 
when I tell my student "While holding the trumpet so the mouthpiece is 
centered on your lips, you blow with sufficient pressure to get your 
lips to vibrate."

While with music theory, I will readily agree that I am consciously 
thinking about music theory all the time I am reading and playing music, 
since music theory is what tells me what I should do when I see those 
ink-splats on the page.

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Fin another long time question

[dhbailey]

A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Here is another one:
When 'Clear Item' under MasMover, Measure Item is listed first, while the
'Copy Entry' lists the other way around.  I have never got used to this.
 Why is it his way?
I hope my erratic grammar passes for communication here :-)
Seriously, I wish if I had any talent in linguistics.  I just don't have
a heart for it.
That question can only be answered by the little gnomes who inhabit the 
bowels of the MakeMusic development offices.  :-)

I think you communicate very well -- at least I understand you.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Re: Finale Digest, Vol 19, Issue 16

[Ken Moore]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> David W.
Fenton  writes:
>Well, now you're in a whole different set of issues, none of which 
>are fundamental to the meaning and comprehensibility of music.

I'm not sure that I understand your use of the terms "meaning" and
"comprehensibility".  I would expect "meaning" to relate to non-musical
matters while "comprehensibility" would be concerned with the listeners
recognition of audible patterns and the relationships among them.

>> And BTW, it's not up to you to decide whether J's music is very good
>> or not. On that point, the verdict of history is in, long since.
>
>I never claimed the right to make any such decision. I just pointed 
>out that if the music is incomprehensible without reference to 
>outside information that is not musical in nature, then it's not very 
>good music.

If by "comprehensibility" you mean the same as I do, then I agree.
OTOH, I don't see how you could get any grasp on "meaning" (which is
very tenuous concept in music, IMO) without reference to outside
information.

-- 
Ken Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web site: http://www.mooremusic.org.uk/
I reject emails > 100k automatically: warn me beforehand if you want to send one
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Gerald Berg]

With luck history will never have the final say on anything we do!  
Otherwise we are toast.  Of course Janacek is great --just listen to 
him.  What's not great about it?  That he was unknown in his time (I'd 
kill for a career as unknown as this) sez nothing about his artistic 
merit -- it is political.  Small country -- small art -- who cares -- 
kind of thing.  I mean people may not go for 'his kind of thing' at 
some point -- but likewise Mozart.  Will that suddenly make Mozart not 
great?
I remember when it was fashionable to call Richard Strauss second 
rate-- often his is not my kind of thing -- but second rate?
At this point it just comes down to fashion.
Jerry

On 8-Feb-05, at 9:05 PM, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Feb 8, 2005, at 3:52 PM, dhbailey wrote:
I don't think it has anything to do with faith -- history will be the 
final arbiter, regardless of how great we currently may think any 
composer (currently living or long dead) might be.
Sorry, I wasn't clear.  When I said "the permanence of history's 
verdict", I didn't mean to challenge the authority of history 
generally, only of this particular verdict.  Andrew suggested that 
history's verdict on Janacek is "long since" in.  I think it's way too 
soon to say that.  I can think of a dozen opera composers who were 
considered great 75 years after their death but were discarded by 
history 50 years later.  (Plus a few more who were great for a 
century, then discarded for a century, and then revived again.)  Maybe 
Janacek will join them, or maybe he won't.  But I don't think history 
has had its final say on him yet.

--
On Feb 8, 2005, at 3:18 PM, Lee Actor wrote:
I think you're overstating the case somewhat. [...]
Yes, I think so too.  I meant only to give a short-hand version.
mdl
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Gerald Berg
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Netiquette: what to quote in a polite reply

[Ken Moore]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Dean M.
Estabrook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Wow, Darcy:  Where did you learn all  this stuff?  Thanks for the tip 
>[and another 9 lines of thanks]
>
>
>>[21 lines of previous message, of which about 5 would have sufficed to
>>put the new material in context]
>>
>>
>> On 08 Feb 2005, at 5:27 PM, Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
>>
>>>[16 lines of unnecessary double quote]
[40 lines of triple quote]
>[7 lines of quadruple quote]
>>[30 lines of quintuple and higher quote]
> I know what public school music has done for me. I have witnessed 
>[and another 21 lines of sig]
[8 lines of sig
>>> I know what public school music has done for me. I have witnessed the 
>>>[and another 21 lines of sig]
>>[8 lines of sig]
>I know what public school music has done for me. I have witnessed the 
>[and another 12 lines of sig]

I read these 180 or so lines via a dial-up line with a pro-rata charge.
Please find out how your email software can be made to quote only what
is needed to put your post in context.  If it won't do that you need to
get another program.

-- 
Ken Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web site: http://www.mooremusic.org.uk/
I reject emails > 100k automatically: warn me beforehand if you want to send one
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] OT Janacek [was: Garritan (still!!)]

[Ken Moore]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mark D Lew
writes:
>> Umm, what IS history's verdict on Janacek's music? I really like it, 
>> but I'm not sure that counts for much. 8-)
>
>I'm not sure I share Andrew's faith in the permanence of history's 
>verdict.  For about 30 years Janacek was an obscure nobody.  Then some 
>time in the 1970s Mackerras championed him, and for the last 30 years 
>he's been considered great.  Maybe that will stick, or maybe it will 
>turn back.  Opera composers go in and out of fashion.

Wind players are likely to keep performing the wind sextet "Mladi"
(standard quintet with extra bass clarinet; "The best wind music not
written by Mozart") and string players the two extraordinary quartets.
The BBC plays the Sinfonietta and "Taras Bulba" frequently and some
other orchestral works from time to time.  Other composers will come
into fashion, so J's fraction is likely to decline, but that has already
happened to Beethoven, whom many people still consider great.

-- 
Ken Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web site: http://www.mooremusic.org.uk/
I reject emails > 100k automatically: warn me beforehand if you want to send one
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Richard Yates]

> I don't think anybody has said physics has no significance, just that it
> is not part of people's conscious thought processes while making music
> or playing pool.

My part of this thread has been to respond to the post that said: "Physics
is involved, but not at any conscious level,
and not at any significant level".

This says that no aspect of physics is in consciousness when making music,
and that physics is has no significant role in making music. I think that
this may have just been sloppy writing (rather than sloppy thinking) by the
original postert, but people's continuing defense of it suggests otherwise.

> I know I'm not thinking about frequencies, nor the complex formula
> needed to calculate the exact frequency I need to go to when I need to
> leap a tritone and an octave.

Of course you are not. But that is a straw man argument. It is trivial to
select any aspect of physics sufficiently abstract to play no part in
consciousness. You probably do not think of quarks and hadrons, either. But
to say that you do not think about some aspect of physics when you make
music is not the same as saying that you think of no aspect of physics.

You could even try to take the same position about music theory. You could
easily select some aspect of music theory that plays no part in
consciousness when you make music, but wouldn't it seem odd to then claim
that music theory "is involved, but not at any significant level."?

Richard Yates


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Fin another long time question

[A-NO-NE Music]

Here is another one:

When 'Clear Item' under MasMover, Measure Item is listed first, while the
'Copy Entry' lists the other way around.  I have never got used to this.
 Why is it his way?

I hope my erratic grammar passes for communication here :-)
Seriously, I wish if I had any talent in linguistics.  I just don't have
a heart for it.

-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[dhbailey]

Richard Yates wrote:
Do you consciously think about grammar when you speak?
Is grammar significant to communication?
- Darcy

Can someone communicate effectively without having consciously learned
the rules of grammar specifically (as opposed to picking up general
concepts of communication)?  Certainly, children do it all the time!

Whether children 'consciously' learn grammar or 'pick it up' or have it
hardwired, the point is that grammar has significance in communication. It
does not mean that it is everything, but it is significant. Darcy's analogy
is pointing out the flaw in the position that physics has NO significance in
music. (By the way, children's speech is grammar-ridden from as soon as they
string enough words together to have a grammar).
I don't think anybody has said physics has no significance, just that it 
is not part of people's conscious thought processes while making music 
or playing pool.

I know I'm not thinking about frequencies, nor the complex formula 
needed to calculate the exact frequency I need to go to when I need to 
leap a tritone and an octave.  I know how to play one pitch, I know how 
to play the next pitch and I make whatever alterations are necessary to 
change the pitch.  And when I arrive there, if I'm out of tune a bit, I 
certainly don't calculate the number of cents I am out, nor the change 
in tension necessary for my lips to alter the pitch to be in tune, I 
simply get the pitch to sound in tune.

yes, physics are certainly important, but my knowledge of physics as 
physics isn't the least important to my playing the trumpet well, any 
more than knowledge of the grammar as grammar is important to children's 
oral communication.

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Richard Yates]

> >>Do you consciously think about grammar when you speak?
> >>Is grammar significant to communication?
> >>- Darcy

> Can someone communicate effectively without having consciously learned
> the rules of grammar specifically (as opposed to picking up general
> concepts of communication)?  Certainly, children do it all the time!

Whether children 'consciously' learn grammar or 'pick it up' or have it
hardwired, the point is that grammar has significance in communication. It
does not mean that it is everything, but it is significant. Darcy's analogy
is pointing out the flaw in the position that physics has NO significance in
music. (By the way, children's speech is grammar-ridden from as soon as they
string enough words together to have a grammar).

Richard Yates



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[dhbailey]

Richard Yates wrote:
Do you consciously think about grammar when you speak?
Is grammar significant to communication?
- Darcy

Oooh, good one!
Can someone communicate effectively without having consciously learned 
the rules of grammar specifically (as opposed to picking up general 
concepts of communication)?  Certainly, children do it all the time!

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[dhbailey]

Richard Yates wrote:
Do you consciously think about grammar when you speak?
Is grammar significant to communication?
- Darcy

Oooh, good one!
Can someone communicate effectively without having consciously learned 
the rules of grammar specifically (as opposed to picking up general 
concepts of communication)?  Certainly, children do it all the time!

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[dhbailey]

Darcy James Argue wrote:
[snip]
Both a human and a pool-playing robot (like, say, Deep Green -- 
http://www.ece.queensu.ca/hpages/faculty/greenspan/) have to solve 
exactly the same problem, which happens to be a problem of applied physics.

So one solves it with neurons and one solves it with silicon.  What 
makes you so sure the process is so fundamentally different?
Rather than simply calling it "solving it with neurons," the human is 
really solving it with knowledge based on experience gained from long 
periods of practice and the robot solves it with equations and numbers, 
none of which it gained from experience.  That the result may be the 
same in no way guarantees that the principles in the solving of the 
problem are the same.

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[dhbailey]

David W. Fenton wrote:
On 8 Feb 2005 at 17:56, Mark D Lew wrote:

On Feb 8, 2005, at 4:52 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:

. . . Is it important to know
that _The Magic Flute_ is full of Masonic symbolism? . . .
Perhaps, because otherwise, it's fairly incoherent. I would say that
proves that it's not a very good opera.
The fact that Flute has remained popular for centuries in spite of the
fact that 90+% of listeners have no clue about the Masonic symbolism
suggests to me that there is something very good about the opera,
incoherent or not.

No one is a bigger fan of Mozart than I am. But I have always felt 
that the Magic Flute is incoherent *as an opera* (or Singspiel, 
technically speaking, I guess). If it did not have some of the most 
glorious music ever written, it would be a failure. But so far as I 
can tell, it's really just a string of great tunes held together by a 
rather incomprehensible narrative. That's not great opera, though it 
may very well include some of the greatest music ever written.

Might not be great opera, but it sure is the formula that has helped 
many a composer to Broadway fame!  Mozart was just ahead of his time in 
this aspect.  :-)

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[dhbailey]

Mark D Lew wrote:
On Feb 8, 2005, at 4:52 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
. . . Is it important to know
that _The Magic Flute_ is full of Masonic symbolism? . . .

Perhaps, because otherwise, it's fairly incoherent. I would say that
proves that it's not a very good opera.

The fact that Flute has remained popular for centuries in spite of the 
fact that 90+% of listeners have no clue about the Masonic symbolism 
suggests to me that there is something very good about the opera, 
incoherent or not.


Which supports the contention that it isn't the least important to 
understand the background of how or why a composition was written in 
order for people to appreciate it, if it's a well-written piece of 
music.  Well-written music speaks for itself.

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[dhbailey]

Christopher Smith wrote:
On Feb 8, 2005, at 7:52 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
 I just pointed
out that if the music is incomprehensible without reference to
outside information that is not musical in nature, then it's not very
good music.

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree there. I don't know of 
very much art that DOESN'T require cartloads of outside information to 
understand or enjoy it.

I'm glad just the same to finally understand your point, even if I don't 
agree with it.

I agree with David Fenton here -- if a casual listener can't just hear a 
piece of music and enjoy it without any exposure to anything other than 
that piece of music, then it isn't very good music.  If a musical work 
requires a lecture to precede it, pointing out this aspect and that 
aspect, then it's more like a lecture that needs a musical example to 
make it's point than a work of music that should simply need to be heard.

Sure some works can be more deeply appreciated if one looks behind the 
score to the thoughts behind the music, just as a Maserati can be more 
deeply appreciated if one understands engineering and machining 
principles and aerodynamic designs and wheel rim materials and tire 
tread constructions. But I can't think of anybody who would buy a car in 
which they originally hated the test drive simply because they heard an 
explanation of how it was conceived and suddenly came to love it.  If it 
rides terribly, it doesn't matter how it was conceived.  Same thing for 
a work of music -- if the listener doesn't enjoy it, it doesn't matter 
what masonic symbolism is involved or what their compositional 
philosophy is.

To paraphrase Duke Ellington: If it sounds bad it IS bad (at least to 
the person who thinks it sounds bad).

I can hear the conversation concerning a musical work now:
Listener: Wow, that is horrible.  I think I'm going to get sick, it's so 
ugly!
Composer: But this is how I conceived it:  First, I thought of my long 
extramarital affair and how it allowed me to finally know love, then I 
thought of all my fellow countrymen who were killed in battles for 
freedom, finally I decided to throw off the weight of the harmonic 
expectations built up by the composers of the common harmonic practice 
period.
Listener:  Gee, I'm glad you told me -- that is one beautiful work of 
music, I love it!


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] TGTools v2.32

[Jari Williamsson]

Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account wrote:
Agreed.  If it were only as simple as having a window with the staff, 
clef, sharps, flats, naturals, and being able to drag the symbols to 
where they are required on the staff, it would be great!
Yes, it's a big help not having to touch that dialog box. I have such a 
plug-in myself for the type of keys I need.

Best regards,
Jari Williamsson
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale