Re: [Finale] Grace notes

[Owain Sutton]

d. collins wrote:
Two questions on grace notes:
Is there any way (plug-in?) to get Finale to add a little more space 
between a grace note and the following main note? I find the default 
spacing too tight, especially if there's a slur.

Document Options - Grace Notes - Grace Note Offset on Entry
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] TAN: OSX Panther Upgrade

[Rocky Road]

Okay, so I ordered the Panther upgrade.
I'm sure you had a good reason, but I hope you realise that Tiger 
(10.4) could be just around the corner.

--
Rocky Road - in Oz
"Fleeing from the Cylon tyranny, the last Battlestar, Galactica, 
leads a ragtag, fugitive fleet, on a lonely quest, for a shining 
planet known as Earth."
___
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]
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.
Actually, meaning controls grammar.
We have the thought first, then we express it in a manner that we can be 
reasonably sure our listener/reader can understand.


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

[Finale] Strauss

[David Froom]

Actually, Strauss called HIMSELF a "first-rate second-rate composer."
David Froom


> From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: 
> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:00:14 -0600
> To: 
> Subject: Finale Digest, Vol 19, Issue 17
> 
> I remember when it was fashionable to call Richard Strauss second
> rate-- often his is not my kind of thing -- but second rate?


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

[Finale] Music Theory/Duke Ellington

[David Froom]

In defense of music theory -- it seems to me (as someone who has taught it
mostly to performers for 25 years) that a primary function is help people's
brains become aware of what their ear already knows.  (I know, it all
happens in the brain . . . guess I'm talking left-brain, right-brain -- oops
that is too simplistic for biologists these days).

One can speak and write without having studied grammar.  But doesn't
understanding grammar give one more power and control over words, especially
if ones autodidactic approach isn't bearing fruit (one of my teachers used
to say that the problems with autodidacts is that they had bad teachers).

To paraphrase Milton Babbitt, one may always choose to keep oneself ignorant
of the constraints under which one works.  That is OK for some, but not for
others.

As for the argument that music that sounds good IS good -- well of course.
But does that mean that your own tastes are universal?  And does that mean
that it is impossible to acquire an appreciation and affection over time?
Haven't any of you hated something the first time, only to come to love it?
Like with food -- the first taste of strong-smelling cheese, or of brandy,
or of fine wine, often results in a wonder how anyone could like it.

Maybe Duke Ellington should have said:  if it sounds good to me right now,
it is good to me right now.

And anyway, his comment was to argue for inclusiveness.  Let's not twist his
words to use them to exclude anyone from the "good music" club.

And why are people so quick to wish to condemn a particular composer or
stylistic approach, claiming some means of determining -- maybe through
science, maybe through esthetic argument -- whether something is universally
good or bad?  The literature world is large enough for James Joyce and for
Danielle Steele.  Why can't the music world be large enough for all
composers whose music inspires affection in someone other than themselves?

I hate it when people tell me I don't need to understand what I'm doing
(music theory), or that I can't possibly find anything redeeming in music I
love.

David Froom


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

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Richard Yates]

> 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.

Can to define this elusive content without reference to physics? 

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

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Richard Yates]

> > Grammar.  Grammar controls meaning.
> > 
> 
> Actually, meaning controls grammar.
> 
> We have the thought first, then we express it in a manner that we can be 
> reasonably sure our listener/reader can understand.

Thoughts have grammar. 



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

Re: [Finale] Lyric problem (Mac)

[Christopher Smith]

David,

I don't know exactly what the problem is (sounds like a kerning problem – perhaps this is covered by the FAN file?) but I know of a workaround.

Change the font of only the opt-space character to Times New Roman or similar. If this font doesn't close up the opt-space normally, then it shouldn't in this situation either.

Christopher


On Feb 9, 2005, at 8:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Raymond Horton]

And I very clearly wrote my reply before reading your second post, and I 
very clearly disagree with both. 

I agree with Salieri, who called it "grand opera," and it is one of my 
favorites.  

RBH
David W. Fenton wrote:
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.
 

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

Re: [Finale] Re: Garritan and other stuff

[Christopher Smith]

On Feb 9, 2005, at 10:55 PM, 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.

Not disputing your actual point, but don't you mean the BOTTOM three 
parts? In my limited experience playing trombone for these things, I 
noticed the alto-tenor-bass doubled, not the soprano.

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

Re: [Finale] Re: Garritan and other stuff

[Christopher Smith]

On Feb 9, 2005, at 11:40 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 9 Feb 2005 at 23:27, John Howell wrote:
At 10:55 PM -0500 2/9/05, David W. Fenton wrote:
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. :)
Never mind my last post (teaches me to read ahead!)
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.
The trombone is also associated with heck among trombonists. ;-)
My favourite trombone moment is in Beethoven's 9th, where all the men 
in the choir combine with the bass trombone to sound like the voice of 
God. A clear case of typecasting. 8-)

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

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Richard Yates]

In all of these words about words, it may be that the hangup is the word
'significant'. Perhaps all he is saying is that grammar is not the meaning
and the words themselves are not the meaning. If I am on the right track
then he would also say that sound (and hence any aspect of physics) is not
the musical expression.

I may be able agree with all of these if he defines what he means by
'meaning' and 'musical'. So far they have been defined only by what he says
they are not.

However, it is quite another matter, and the one being questioned here, to
say that physics is not significant to music and grammar is not significant
to meaning.

RY


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

Re: [Finale] TAN: OSX Panther Upgrade

[A-NO-NE Music]

Rocky Road / 05.2.10 / 04:10 AM wrote:

>I'm sure you had a good reason, but I hope you realise that Tiger 
>(10.4) could be just around the corner.


In my opinion,
You do not want to depend your work on first generation anything, both
software and hardware.  First generation is for you to play with, getting
used to, and read reports around until you feel comfortable to move your
workstation over.

Buying Panther now is not a waste of money at all.


-- 

- Hiro

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


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

[Finale] FinMac 2005b + Times

[A-NO-NE Music]

I was printing out music for show tomorrow, and surprised at printout
messes last night.  Wherever I used Times is totally messed up space-
wise.  I had to reassign to Times New Roman file by file (didn't know if
there is a batch way).

I still don't understand 'check font against system' feature.  What is it
supposed to do?

I also noticed the similar is happening to Helvetica.  Didn't really have
time to invest on this.  I remember someone mentioned the similar is
happening under the Lyric thread.

P.S. One of my old compositions, the printout had a huge black square
blocking the music, while I see nothing is doing it on the screen.  Took
me 2 hours troubleshoot.  Removing everything but notes and so forth.  As
far as I remember this file was printed fine last time, when was under
Fin98.  I finally found a blank stem was printing that black square.  Ack!

Among my studio applications, Finale is the only one gives me cross-
version problems this much.

-- 

- Hiro

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


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

Re: [Finale] Re: Garritan and other stuff

[John Howell]

At 11:40 PM -0500 2/9/05, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 9 Feb 2005 at 23:27, John Howell wrote:
 > 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.
Come to think of it, I've seen a brace of sackbutts (in the 
Cincinnatti Art Museum, I think) with the bells in the shape of 
serpents' heads, and the placard said that there were metal tongues 
in the serpents' mouths that rattled when the instruments were 
played.  They were SUPPOSED to sound like hell!

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] Music Theory/Duke Ellington

[Daniel Wolf]

There is a tremendous fear of music theory out there, with many 
musicians having the sense that music-theoretic discourse "kills the 
magic" of music making.  However, I find that that such feelings can 
often be alleviated by identifying the tasks that theorists set as 
modest ones with "results" that are, ultimately, provisional, such that 
ever-deeper and wider-ranging analyses of music have only deepened our 
sense of music's mysteries.  First of all, music theories are simply 
ways of talking about music, and doing so within communities of 
musicians who share a tradition and some common vocabulary for talking 
about music. This discourse has a modest program, largely because it -- 
as if by definition -- does a good job of describing the mechanics of 
music making, but a lousy job with the emotions and meanings of music 
making, but by and large, it stays out of the territories where it is 
less effective, albeit with the caveat that there are likely to be 
connections between the results of our more mechanical researches and 
such big themes, but these connections are presently very vague.  
Further, a theory of music inevitably suggests real material connections 
within single works of music, between individual works, and between 
repertoires of works, and it does so using tools (language, maths) that 
are basically external to practical music-making, so that a music theory 
may often be a way of discovering previously unknown aspects of musical 
works that can be directly exploited by interpreters.  Finally, the 
end-product of a musical theory is seldom just the analysis of familiar 
musics; it may well point to material and formal possibilities for new 
musics

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

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Andrew Stiller]

On Feb 9, 2005, at 2:53 PM, John Howell wrote:
Bernouli's law, ...Same law that holds up both fixed-wing and 
rotary-wing aircraft.
Actually, that can't be the case, though everybody thinks it is. If 
Bernoulli's law were responsible for lift in aircraft, airplanes 
wouldn't be able to fly upside-down--and they can.

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]

On Feb 9, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Mark D Lew wrote:
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'...

*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.

People are taking this too literally. I only used the figure 150 
because that's how old Janacek is, this year. I meant merely that 
"having  sustained (and grown) a reputation for so long, a composer is 
unlikely subsequently to lose it." I stand by that assertion.

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]

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
Fame--or rather, reputation, wh. is what I was really talking about.
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] OT Long slow argument [was: Garritan and other stuff]

[Ken Moore]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hiroaki
Honshuku writes:
>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?

By the refusal of many of the participants to obey the long established
(but lately much neglected) Internet convention of changing the title
when the subject diverges.  Don't worry.  You're not missing much, but
it is a pity that you can't decide not to read it on the basis of a
meaningful title.

-- 
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] Musical meaning

[Ken Moore]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> David W.
Fenton writes:
>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.

We must mean different things by meaning, which is not surprising: IIRC
the philosopher A J Ayer wrote a whole book called "The Meaning of
Meaning".  My favourite dictionary definition is "the sense intended".
Please explain how I should know what the composer intended without
extra-musical explanation.  What most music conveys to me, irrespective
of outside information and explanation, is an influence on my emotions,
but I know that it can influence other people very differently, even in
the opposite sense, without necessarily being bad music.

-- 
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 Bernoulli

[Ken Moore]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Richard Yates
write:
>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.

The "simple" pressure on the lower side also obeys Bernoulli's law.

The top surface is more important at subsonic than at supersonic speeds.
Above about Mach 10 the top is pretty much irrelevant.
  
-- 
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] Re: Garritan and other stuff

[Andrew Stiller]

On Feb 9, 2005, at 8:19 PM, 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.
1. Lutheran, shmutheran. Opera audiences throughout Europe had been 
accustomed for nearly 200 years to hearing the trombones associated 
with the uncanny and the (supernatural) underworld. Mozart used them 
exactly the same way in Don Giovanni, and would use them thus again in 
the Requiem.

A point discussed at length in _The Birth of the Orchestra_ is how 
virtually every early orchestral device began life as an illustrative 
effect in opera, then gradually became used in the orchestra first for 
the extramusical associations and then later for its own sake. The use 
of trombones is a perfect example of this.

2. Hold any instrument in reserve until a certain moment, then bring 
'em on--a shiver up the spine is guaranteed. Don't have to be 
trombones.

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] TAN Magic Flute (was Garritan and other stuff)

[Andrew Stiller]

D. Fenton:
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.
I I find myself puzzled at the assertions by quite a few on this list 
that The Magic Flute is incoherent. I confess I have never found it so. 
To me the characters, motivations, and events are all perfectly 
straightforward and sensible (within the fairy-tale universe that the  
drama clearly posits), and in fact don't require knowledge of the 
Masonic background--though of course knowledge of this sort can only 
deepen one's  appreciation of any work.

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] FinMac 2005b + Times

[Allen Fisher]

Finale keeps a list of fonts on your system that are used in a document, so
that you can take the file to other systems and use the correct fonts. This
list can get out of sync if for example, take a file that uses the Awesome
font from your desktop to your laptop that you do not have Awesome installed
on. By choosing "Check Document Fonts Against System Fonts," you are given
the opportunity to replace a font not found on the system with one that is.


On 2/10/05 8:40 AM, "A-NO-NE Music" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> saith:

> I still don't understand 'check font against system' feature.  What is it
> supposed to do?

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

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Andrew Stiller]

We have the thought first, then we express it in a manner that we can 
be reasonably sure our listener/reader can understand.

--
David H. Bailey
Actually, recent research suggests that we talk first, and find out 
from that what we meant.

Daniel Dennett quotes I forget wh. famous novelist: "How can I know 
what I think until I see what I say?"

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] FinMac 2005b + Times

[A-NO-NE Music]

Allen Fisher / 05.2.10 / 00:28 PM wrote:

>By choosing "Check Document Fonts Against System Fonts," you are given
>the opportunity to replace a font not found on the system with one that is.

That's what I thought, but it is not working, at least on my machines. 
See, back in OS9 dark ages, I had a few signature fonts I used often in
Finale.  These fonts are now listed as italic in Finale, but Check Font
feature does nothing for me.  What am I doing wrong?

-- 

- Hiro

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


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

[Finale] Music Theory

[Dean M. Estabrook]

Until I got to grad school, and encountered a gentleman named Wilson 
Coker,  I had no idea how significantly the process of musical analysis 
would shape my destiny. We learned a tremendous amount of info from the 
study of logical connectors, Shenker (sp?),  the study of Emotion and 
Meaning in Music  (Meyer, I think), the music of Hindemith, and much 
more. However, if there was one "magic bullet" revealed to me, it was 
the concept of the rhythmic cycle: i.e., Arsis, Thesis, Stasis.  Once I 
was made aware of its presence in both micro and macro applications,  
the whole world of gesture and phrase structure became apparent.  This 
info, coupled with the search for all sorts of intra-musical  
references is what has allowed me, over all my years as a choral and 
instrumental director to instruct performers as to where the rhythmic 
cycle should be applied. So, was the study of music theory key to my 
experience as a teacher? ... I guess!!!

Dean

I know what public school music has done for me. I have witnessed the 
journey it has provided  my daughter and hundreds of other students I 
have been fortunate enough to teach. I am both amazed and outraged that 
there are those who would knowingly disenfranchise generations of 
humans by excising the practice and inculcation of an entire heritage  
from  our children’s curricula.

Dean M. Estabrook
Retired Church Musician
Composer, Arranger
Adjudicator
Amateur Golfer

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

RE: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Stu McIntire]

Regarding physics and music, can I walk out on the ice and suggest that a
distinction needs to be made between physics as a discipline of study, on
the one hand, and the term being used to refer to the actual forces, etc.,
that function in the universe?  After parsing through these interesting
emails I feel like this ambiguity is somehow at the root of the issue.  Kind
of one of those "the map is not the terrain" deals, the field of study being
the map.  

Having said that, would anyone argue that musical compositional practice
and/or performance techniques since Perotin, or the cave dwellers in Lascoux
for that matter, have ever been changed directly because of some
breakthrough in the field of physics?  The underlying principles, discovered
or not, not having changed much, I assume.  Can anyone show that some
specific parameter of musical composition or performance changed because of
the work of Kepler or Newton, for example?  I don't think so, so I think I'm
with David.  On the other hand, I expect it would be easy to find how
specific discoveries in the field of physics changed the way performance
halls were built, metals used to make instruments were, the construction and
design of instruments, etc.  I'm guessing that David would agree with that,
because these things are not THE MUSIC.  

However, the net effect of such changes has, I expect, opened the way for
actual changes in the music.  I can imagine one of James Burke's PBS
Connections series installments tracing a new way of composing for a
particular instrument back through an enhancement that made that new
expressivity possible that was, in turn, brought about by some discovery in
the natural sciences.  The composer taking advantage of the increased
flexibility and range of the pfosucophone is dealing with a real, physical
object, not thinking about physics.  However, that someone's thinking about
physics, mixed in with an assortment of fortuitous accidents, did eventually
lead to changes in the pfosucophone, and therefore the music written for it,
seems likely to me.  

Stu, not weighing in on The Magic Flute or Janacek, except to say that I get
a kick out of The Glagolitic Mass, without vouching for it's everlasting
greatness

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

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

[Raymond Horton]

I I find myself puzzled at the assertions by quite a few on this list 
that The Magic Flute is incoherent. I confess I have never found it 
so. To me the characters, motivations, and events are all perfectly 
straightforward and sensible (within the fairy-tale universe that the  
drama clearly posits), and in fact don't require knowledge of the 
Masonic background--though of course knowledge of this sort can only 
deepen one's  appreciation of any work.

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

Re: [Finale] Bernoulli and airplane wings

[dhbailey]

Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Feb 9, 2005, at 2:53 PM, John Howell wrote:
Bernouli's law, ...Same law that holds up both fixed-wing and 
rotary-wing aircraft.

Actually, that can't be the case, though everybody thinks it is. If 
Bernoulli's law were responsible for lift in aircraft, airplanes 
wouldn't be able to fly upside-down--and they can.

I'm confused by this remark -- Bernoulli's law deals with the flow of 
air over an air-foil and the difference in presssure on the under side 
of the wing and the top of the wing.  When a plane flies upside down 
there is still an upper side and a lower side for the air to work 
against.  Well designed wings (as in aerobatic planes) work equally well 
no matter which side is up.

What doesn't work is for planes to fly with their wings in a vertical 
orientation since there is no upward lift on the wings.  Which is why 
planes don't fly that way for very long, if at all, before the pilot has 
to level them out.

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

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[John Howell]

At 11:06 AM -0500 2/10/05, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Feb 9, 2005, at 2:53 PM, John Howell wrote:
Bernouli's law, ...Same law that holds up both fixed-wing and 
rotary-wing aircraft.
Actually, that can't be the case, though everybody thinks it is. If 
Bernoulli's law were responsible for lift in aircraft, airplanes 
wouldn't be able to fly upside-down--and they can.
Yes, but not as efficiently, I believe, because the wings aren't 
designed to be optimum in that position.  The fluid (air) is still 
accelerated and its pressure still drops, which is what creates lift. 
At least that was the example my high school physics teacher used, 
and i've never seen it refuted.  Of course I've never observed a 
helicopter flying upside down, either!  (In theory it should be 
possible, but I wouldn't want to try it!)

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] Re: Garritan and other stuff

[John Howell]

At 11:53 AM -0500 2/10/05, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Hold any instrument in reserve until a certain moment, then bring 
'em on--a shiver up the spine is guaranteed. Don't have to be 
trombones.
This jogged my memory, Andrew.  That's exactly what Monteverdi did in 
"L'Orfeo," saving the trombone choir until the scenes in the 
underworld (Act 3?  4?).  An absolutely wonderful moment that creates 
exactly the effect you cite.

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] Bernoulli and airplane wings

[Phil Daley]

At 03:29 PM 2/10/2005, dhbailey wrote:
 
>Andrew Stiller wrote:
>> 
>> Actually, that can't be the case, though everybody thinks it is.
If 
>> Bernoulli's law were responsible for lift in aircraft, airplanes

>> wouldn't be able to fly upside-down--and they can.
>> 
>
>I'm confused by this remark -- Bernoulli's law deals with the flow of

>air over an air-foil and the difference in presssure on the under
side 
>of the wing and the top of the wing.  When a plane flies upside
down 
>there is still an upper side and a lower side for the air to work

>against.  Well designed wings (as in aerobatic planes) work
equally well 
>no matter which side is up.
Absolutely wrong.
Flying upside down pushes the wing towards the ground.
The pilot has to overcome this problem by adjusting the back ailerons (I
am sure that's not their name) and engine speed.
Don't quit your day job ;-)

Phil Daley 
< AutoDesk >
http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley


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

RE: [Finale] Bernoulli and airplane wings

[Bob Colwell]

Folks, 
there's way more to this topic than anyone has said so far. Here are some 
resources
(and 
please let's get back to Finale, because whenever we stray from that things get 
weird
very 
quickly.)
 
1. 
Stop Abusing Bernoulli: How Airplanes Really Fly, Gale Craig, Regenerative 
Press1997
   Ok, Craig's a bit cranky but it's a fun read 
anyway.
 
2. 
Theory of Flight, Richard von Mises, Dover, 1945
   Not an easy read, but comprehensive and still used in 
aeronautics courses
 
3. 
Leave Bernoulli Out of This, Bob Colwell, IEEE Computer, May 
2003
 
4. 
"See How It Flies" in http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/how 

 
5. 
"Understanding Flight" by David F. Anderson and Scott Eberhardt, 
McGraw Hill, 2001
 
6. The 
Simple Science of Flight, Henk Tennekes, MIT Press 1997
   I loved this book. It uses birds for all of its examples, 
and shows how speed and distance
are 
related to wingspan. Tennekes says if it flies, it obeys the same laws, whether 
it's a 747
or a 
hummingbird. Great fun.
 
7. 
http://www.jefraskin.com/forjef2/jefweb-compiled/published/coanda_effect.html
 
Essentially, Bernoulli's effect (which does NOT have anything to do with 
accelerating
low 
pressure air), Newton's law on action/reaction, and the Coanda effect, combined 
with
suitable subtlety, can account for flying machines. But no one of them by 
itself can.
 
-BobC
 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Bernoulli and airplane wings

[dhbailey]

Phil Daley wrote:
At 03:29 PM 2/10/2005, dhbailey wrote:
 
 >Andrew Stiller wrote:
 >>
 >> Actually, that can't be the case, though everybody thinks it is. If
 >> Bernoulli's law were responsible for lift in aircraft, airplanes
 >> wouldn't be able to fly upside-down--and they can.
 >>
 >
 >I'm confused by this remark -- Bernoulli's law deals with the flow of
 >air over an air-foil and the difference in presssure on the under side
 >of the wing and the top of the wing.  When a plane flies upside down
 >there is still an upper side and a lower side for the air to work
 >against.  Well designed wings (as in aerobatic planes) work equally well
 >no matter which side is up.

Absolutely wrong.
Flying upside down pushes the wing towards the ground.
The pilot has to overcome this problem by adjusting the back ailerons (I 
am sure that's not their name) and engine speed.

Don't quit your day job ;-)

Right, which forces the wings to have the proper angle of attack so they 
provide lift to the airplane.  How is that different from what I said?

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

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

[Mark D Lew]

On Feb 10, 2005, at 9:23 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
I I find myself puzzled at the assertions by quite a few on this list 
that The Magic Flute is incoherent. I confess I have never found it 
so. To me the characters, motivations, and events are all perfectly 
straightforward and sensible (within the fairy-tale universe that the  
drama clearly posits), and in fact don't require knowledge of the 
Masonic background--though of course knowledge of this sort can only 
deepen one's  appreciation of any work.
Who has asserted incoherence besides David?  I was using his word for 
the sake of argument, but my responses were (1) if it is incoherent, 
then familiarity with Freemasonry does not make it less so, and (2) the 
story works dramatically in spite of the "incoherence".

The first of these was an exaggeration on my part, as understanding of 
the Masonic symbolism does diminish some (but not all) of the 
"incoherence".  The second is not too much different from what you've 
expressed here, only with different words.

I would say that your characterization of "perfectly straightforward 
and sensible" is also an exaggeration.  I agree that the fairy-tale 
universe allows for the zaniness of the plot, but it is not perfectly 
straightforward to open the drama with a kimono-clad Egyptian prince 
chased by a giant snake, and it is not perfectly sensible that he sees 
a small portrait of a princess and instantly falls in love with her.  
Yes, we accept these things because that's the sort of story it is, but 
that doesn't make it sensible or straightforward.

It is surely not at all straightforward that most of the first act is 
devoted to setting up a dramatic situation in which the hero promises 
the virtuous queen that he will save the princess from the evil 
villain, only to have the scenario abruptly turned upside-down for the 
rest of the opera. There's no story of revelation here, neither in the 
script nor the music.  There's just a bit of recitative in which the 
Priest says, "no, you've got it backward", Tamino plays his flute, and 
hey presto Sarastro is the wise sage and the Queen is the evil villain. 
 This is not a well-crafted dramatic reversal: It feels more like the 
librettist started writing one story and then changed his mind and 
morphed it into a different story (which, in fact, is exactly what 
happened).

Even in a fairy tale universe there is often a comprehensive logic and 
tightness of the drama.  Here, there is not.  There are plenty of 
unexplained loose ends and absurd happenings.  Many of these are 
standard fairy tale fare, but others go beyond that.  Again, I'm not 
saying it doesn't work dramatically; I believe that it does work.  
Still, there is a difference between a story like this one (or, eg, 
Love for Three Oranges), as opposed to a story like Traviata or Otello. 
 Someone with a penchant for blunt overstatement might call it 
"incoherent".  That's not the word I'd choose, but I can see what he's 
talking about.

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

Re: [Finale] TAN Magic Flute and Opera

[Chuck Israels]

I go to the opera in a state of suspension of disbelief, otherwise I cannot enjoy it.  Many opera plots seem ridiculous to me, and taking 15 minutes to die while singing...well, you see what I mean.  So that's the price of enjoyment of the spectacle and the music.  Sometimes I pay it willingly, sometimes grudgingly, but I'd be much the poorer for never having experienced The Magic Flute (and I agree that Bergman's film is a great introduction to it, with something of a sensible surrounding "plot" and good singing in a beautiful setting).

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] Bernoulli and airplane wings

[Owain Sutton]

dhbailey wrote:

Right, which forces the wings to have the proper angle of attack so they 
provide lift to the airplane.  How is that different from what I said?


It's using the thrust from the engine to provide downward force - 
instead of using the aerodynamics of the wings.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Johannes Gebauer]

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.

It's a sort of difficult point to argue against, but that is certainly 
not the way Mozart's contemporaries felt about the Magic Flute. Goethe 
actually planned on writing a second part of the Magic Flute, and 
already asked the composer Wranitzki to provide the music. One might 
argue with his choice of composer, but nonetheless he obviously thought 
the Magic Flute was successful as a Singspiel.

Personally I don't think you need to know anything about Masonic 
Symbolism to understand and enjoy the opera. I am saying this quite 
confidently as my parents took me to see the Magic Flute when I was very 
young, and I loved it. In fact me and my sister were so impressed we 
started replaying the opera.
One just has to understand that the audience for which this piece was 
written was not necessarily the upper class Viennese, but a less 
educated audience, and for that audience the opera was immensely 
successful. That doesn't mean that I don't see your point.

But then the Freischütz Libretto is really bad (much worse than the 
Magic Flute), and still that opera was easily the most successful 
opera/Singspiel written in the first half of the 19th  century.

Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] To fly or not to fly

[D. Keneth Fowler]

David Bailey observed,  
When a plane flies upside down there is still an upper side and a lower
side for the air to work against.  Well designed wings (as in
aerobatic planes) work equally well no matter which side is up.
It might be clearer to say that wings designed for aerobatic flight
(there are many well designed wings for other aircraft types) work
equally well  no matter which side is up.
What doesn't work is for planes to fly with their wings in a vertical
orientation since there is no upward lift on the wings.  Which is
why planes don't fly that way for very long, if at all
A plane may still fly while the aircraft is vertical. The aircraft
can maintain controlled vertical flight if airspeed is provided by engine
thrust  sufficient to overcomes the weight and drag of the airplane
which in this case work to pull the airplane tail first backward toward
the earth. The wings are still generating lift, but, as you say, it is
not in the vertical direction. It is horizontal, in which case it 
dictates the plane's angle of flight relative to the earth's surface.
And, as you say,  many planes do not fly vertically for very long,
if at all. None of the planes I flew were capable of vertical flight.
Attempting to do so would surely distress the organ committee seated in
the cabin.
Ken Fowler, former company pilot, Allen Organ Company 
___
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 0:36, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> 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.

No, grammar *enables* meaning. The switch you are making is a switch 
of meaning by changing the words. You've done nothing to change the 
*grammar*, thus grammar is not part of the message you're trying to 
convey, just the substrate on which the message is carried.

> You wrote:
> 
> > And you're not changing the grammar
> 
> Uh, never said I was.

Then grammar is *not* part of the message, and thus, not significant 
to the meaning of the message (though a necessary prerequisite for 
there to be any possibility of conveying meaning in the first place).

> > -- 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.

No, the grammatical construction remains the same.

You are manipulating the content, not the structure.

> > 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?

No, I'm not agreeing with you at all. Your example does not 
demonstrate anything about grammatical structure, since your two 
examples are structurally indistinguishable. It is only at the level 
of denotative meaning that there is any difference, at the message 
level, not at the grammatical level.

> > 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."

And that's exactly what your example shows -- the same grammatical 
structure can convey two entirely different meanings. Thus, the 
grammatical structure itself is not a controlling aspect of the 
communication -- it is the words itself that control the meaning.

And that's what I've been arguing about music, that the foreground 
elements, not the background structural system, are the only non-
trivial (i.e., significant) part of the communication.

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

Then we are at loggerheads and have nothing more to say to each 
other. If you can't understand why your example does not show grammar 
altering meaning, then there is nothing further that we can say to 
each other!

-- 
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 4:58, dhbailey wrote:

> Darcy James Argue wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> > 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.
> 
> Actually, meaning controls grammar.

Yes! Grammar is a mere tool by which we convey meaning.

> We have the thought first, then we express it in a manner that we can
> be reasonably sure our listener/reader can understand.

Not sure about that, since grammar seems to be in some aspects hard-
wired into our brains (though it's not inherent -- it's something 
that gets hardwired in the process of learning).

But the point is: grammar is a system by which we communicate. It is 
not the message itself. It is not the meaning.

-- 
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] Musical meaning

[David W. Fenton]

On 10 Feb 2005 at 10:07, Ken Moore wrote:

> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> David W.
> Fenton writes: >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.
> 
> We must mean different things by meaning, which is not surprising:
> IIRC the philosopher A J Ayer wrote a whole book called "The Meaning
> of Meaning".  My favourite dictionary definition is "the sense
> intended". Please explain how I should know what the composer intended
> without extra-musical explanation.  What most music conveys to me,
> irrespective of outside information and explanation, is an influence
> on my emotions, but I know that it can influence other people very
> differently, even in the opposite sense, without necessarily being bad
> music.

My dictionary is replete with words that have multiple definitions. 
That is, they have many meanings. No one would even begin to claim 
that because words have no single, definite meaning that words have 
no meaning at all.

That we may perceive different, personal meanings does not show that 
there is no meaning there.

Ever heard of inter-subjectivity?

-- 
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

[Finale] OT lift on inverted wings

[Ken Moore]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Actually, that can't be the case, though everybody thinks it is. If 
>Bernoulli's law were responsible for lift in aircraft, airplanes 
>wouldn't be able to fly upside-down--and they can.

When an aircraft flies inverted the air flows over the "lower" (relative
to the aircraft) wing surface faster than over the "upper", so Bernoulli
applies just the same as when it is the right way up.  The interesting
question is how the speed difference develops, which is not much to do
with Bernoulli, but that is third year degree stuff, and too long to
explain here.  The aerobatic aircraft that do this sort of thing
habitually usually have symmetrical wing sections (i.e. no camber).

-- 
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

[David W. Fenton]

On 10 Feb 2005 at 5:22, Richard Yates wrote:

> > 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.
> 
> Can to define this elusive content without reference to physics? 

First, define physics.

In this discussion, the meaning of that word has been so broad as to 
include all operations within the physical world. By that definition, 
my task would be impossible.

Not that that is actually a problem -- most logical systems cannot be 
completely described in terms of themselves. I believe that was what 
Goedel's theorem was all about (though I'm not a mathematician).

In fact, the task would depend on the piece of music being described. 
It is only when you ask me to abstract "musical meaning" for all 
pieces of music that I might have to delve into non-musical materials 
to explain how meaning is conveyed.

To actually explicate the meaning of a particular piece, though, I 
doubt there'd be any requirement to make reference to physics, at 
least not in any meaningful sense of the term "physics."

Given that the deck is stacked against me in this forum by the 
insistence on a debased, all-inclusive definition of physics, I shall 
not take you up on an offer of discussing meaning in a particular 
piece of music.

-- 
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] Bernoulli and airplane wings

[dhbailey]

Owain Sutton wrote:

dhbailey wrote:

Right, which forces the wings to have the proper angle of attack so 
they provide lift to the airplane.  How is that different from what I 
said?


It's using the thrust from the engine to provide downward force - 
instead of using the aerodynamics of the wings.
Good thing I don't work in the aerospace industry, then, huh?  :-)

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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 5:21 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
No, grammar *enables* meaning. The switch you are making is a switch
of meaning by changing the words. You've done nothing to change the
*grammar*,
Okay.  This may be a terminology problem.  To me (and to linguists), 
"changing the grammar" means changing the *rules* of grammar -- for 
instance, changing from a Subject-Verb-Object grammar like English to a 
Subject-Object-Verb language like Japanese.  So there's a difference 
between "changing the grammar" -- which effectively means you're 
changing the language -- and making a grammatical change, like 
switching the subject and object in a sentence.

Changing "Dog bites man" to "Man bites dog" involves making a 
*grammatical change* (which is *not* the same thing as "changing the 
grammar").  Yes, the structure is the same -- subject-verb-object -- 
because that's the kind of word order English has.  But I didn't change 
the content.  The content -- the words -- are exactly the same.  But 
they fill different grammatical roles because they have a different 
position in each sentence.

So, again: grammar determines meaning.
You are manipulating the content, not the structure.
Again, I'm not changing the content.  Content = words.  The words are 
the same.  I'm changing the structure by modifying the grammatical 
function of the words "man" and "dog."

I could also change the grammar without changing the word order.  I 
could invent some arbitrary, artificial grammar that uses all the same 
English words but uses an Object-Verb-Subject order.  In that 
artificial grammar, "Man bites dog" would mean exactly the opposite of 
what it does in good old Subject-Verb-Object English.

So, again: grammar determines meaning.
No, I'm not agreeing with you at all. Your example does not
demonstrate anything about grammatical structure, since your two
examples are structurally indistinguishable. It is only at the level
of denotative meaning that there is any difference, at the message
level, not at the grammatical level.
It is the Subject-Verb-Object word order of English that allows you to 
decode the denotative meaning of "Dog bites man" and "Man bites dog."  
You can't determine the meaning without processing the grammar.

And, again, just because you don't consciously think about English 
grammar and its word order rules when you speak, or read, or write, 
doesn't mean it "has no significance in the *meaning* of any particular 
speech or written utterance".  Quite the opposite.

And that's exactly what your example shows -- the same grammatical
structure can convey two entirely different meanings. Thus, the
grammatical structure itself is not a controlling aspect of the
communication -- it is the words itself that control the meaning.
As I have said, many times, words *cannot* control the meaning because 
the words in "Man bites dog" and "Dog bites man" are *exactly the 
same*.  In order to decode the meaning, you need to determine which 
word is the subject and which word is the object, and the words 
themselves don't reveal that information.  Only grammar can do that.

- 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 10 Feb 2005 at 17:45, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> On 10 Feb 2005, at 5:21 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > No, grammar *enables* meaning. The switch you are making is a switch
> > of meaning by changing the words. You've done nothing to change the
> > *grammar*,
> 
> Okay.  This may be a terminology problem. . . .

The grammatical structure of the utterance has not been change by 
swapping the nouns.

> . . . To me (and to linguists),
> "changing the grammar" means changing the *rules* of grammar -- for
> instance, changing from a Subject-Verb-Object grammar like English to
> a Subject-Object-Verb language like Japanese.  So there's a difference
> between "changing the grammar" -- which effectively means you're
> changing the language -- and making a grammatical change, like
> switching the subject and object in a sentence.

At other points in my reply I've explicitly used "grammatical 
structure" and that's what I've been discussing. You haven't altered 
the structure of the sentence by swapping the two nouns.

> Changing "Dog bites man" to "Man bites dog" involves making a 
> *grammatical change* (which is *not* the same thing as "changing the
> grammar").  Yes, the structure is the same -- subject-verb-object --
> because that's the kind of word order English has.  But I didn't
> change the content.  The content -- the words -- are exactly the same.
>  But they fill different grammatical roles because they have a
> different position in each sentence.

No, from my point of view you've radically altered the content, since 
I use "content" to refer to "meaning." You seem to use "content" to 
mean "the abstract collection of words used in the sentence."

> So, again: grammar determines meaning.

I simply disagree.

> > You are manipulating the content, not the structure.
> 
> Again, I'm not changing the content.  Content = words. . . . 

No, content = meaning.

> . . . The words are
> the same.  I'm changing the structure by modifying the grammatical
> function of the words "man" and "dog."

No, you're simply swapping the position of two nouns, utilizing 
exactly the same grammatical structure. It's the swap of denotative 
meaning that accomplishes the change of meaning (because the change 
of position moves the noun into a different grammatical function). 
You've done nothing to alter the structure of the sentence.

> I could also change the grammar without changing the word order.  I
> could invent some arbitrary, artificial grammar that uses all the same
> English words but uses an Object-Verb-Subject order.  In that
> artificial grammar, "Man bites dog" would mean exactly the opposite of
> what it does in good old Subject-Verb-Object English.
> 
> So, again: grammar determines meaning.

Well, in that sense, yes, it does.

But this just points out a problem with the analogy between music and 
language -- it quickly breaks down. 

We were talking about physics/acoustics and music. Grammar would be 
an analog of musical style, rather than of physics/acoustics, and you 
could contrast two "grammars" of music, such as tonality and 
modality, and you'd find that this "grammar" does, in fact, 
participate in the construction of musical meaning.

But physics/acoustics are neutral in regard to tonality vs. 
atonality, in the sense that the same elements are used to create 
different systems of interaction of tones (we'll leave aside, for the 
moment, whether or not atonality is a viable system psycho-
acoustically speaking; I can't see the argument against its viability 
as there's plenty of non-tonal music that makes perfect sense to me, 
despite whatever psycho-acoustic "prejudices" might be pre-wired into 
my brain). 

Certain things can be expressed in atonality that can't be expressed 
in tonality, and vice versa.

But both systems draw on the same pool of acoustic phenomena (though 
the two systems don't use all the same phenomena (atonality may avoid 
the octave, for instance), and they don't give them the same 
meaning). Physics does not determine what the perfect fifth means -- 
only the musical style (i.e., tonality or atonality) defines its 
meaning.

> > No, I'm not agreeing with you at all. Your example does not
> > demonstrate anything about grammatical structure, since your two
> > examples are structurally indistinguishable. It is only at the level
> > of denotative meaning that there is any difference, at the message
> > level, not at the grammatical level.
> 
> It is the Subject-Verb-Object word order of English that allows you to
> decode the denotative meaning of "Dog bites man" and "Man bites dog." 
> You can't determine the meaning without processing the grammar.

I agree. It's the ether through which the message is transmitted.

But it doesn't play any significant part in the message, except as 
the encoding.

I could send the same message in German, using completely different 
words and grammar, but the meaning of the message would be identical.

> And, again, just because you don't 

Re: [Finale] TAN Magic Flute and Opera

[Mark D Lew]

On Feb 10, 2005, at 1:42 PM, Chuck Israels wrote:
I go to the opera in a state of suspension of disbelief, otherwise I 
cannot enjoy it.  Many opera plots seem ridiculous to me, and taking 
15 minutes to die while singing...well, you see what I mean.  So 
that's the price of enjoyment of the spectacle and the music.
But that's not what we're talking about.  There are different levels of 
suspension of belief.  The fact that characters are singing where in 
real life they would either speak to one another or think silently to 
themselves is a function of the operatic medium.  Likewise for the 
non-equivalence of stage time to real time, that characters are 
(almost) always facing forward and never away from the audience, that 
we never see the boring parts of life such as going to the bathroom or 
sleeping for six hours between one day and the next, etc -- 
characteristics shared with related media such as film or theater.

In our discussion of Magic Flute here, all of the practical artifacts 
of the operatic medium are taken for granted. We're discussing the 
unrealism of the story beyond that.

When Otello overhears only fragments of the conversation between Iago 
and Cassio, and Cassio hears none of Otello's asides, in spite of the 
fact that all three are singing loudly enough to be heard clearly by 
the audience, that is merely a function of the operatic medium, outside 
of the story.  Inside the story, we can imagine that they are speaking 
in quieter tones and Otello's hiding place is something better than 
just on the other side of a cardboard tree.  Our suspension of 
disbelief requires us to forget about the stage mechanics and imagine a 
story which is fundamentally realistic.

At the end of Magic Flute, when Monostatos, the Queen and the Ladies 
sink into the earth, that's not just a function of staging. Inside the 
story, a hole has opened up in the earth and swallowed them all whole. 
Our suspension of disbelief requires us not only to ignore the trap 
door on the stage floor, but to imagine an event which is itself 
unrealistic.

These are two different types of disbelief.  One is a plausible (albeit 
exaggerated) story distorted by operatic presentation; the other is a 
story which is entirely fanciful whether operatic or not.

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

Re: [Finale] Bernoulli and airplane wings

[Richard Yates]

Here's one link that lays out the controversy quite clearly:

http://www.amasci.com/wing/airfoil.html

And check out the diagrams at:

http://amasci.com/wing/airgif2.html

RY

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

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Christopher Smith]

On Feb 10, 2005, at 5:45 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I could also change the grammar without changing the word order.  I 
could invent some arbitrary, artificial grammar that uses all the same 
English words but uses an Object-Verb-Subject order.  In that 
artificial grammar, "Man bites dog" would mean exactly the opposite of 
what it does in good old Subject-Verb-Object English.

Man bitten by dog?
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Music Theory/Duke Ellington

[Bruce K H Kau]

At 04:26 PM 2/10/2005 +0100, Daniel Wolf wrote:
>There is a tremendous fear of music theory out there, with many 
>musicians having the sense that music-theoretic discourse "kills the 
>magic" of music making.



*sigh* I have run into more than my share of people who even say that
learning to read music (music theory at its most basic level) is not
important to their being able to make music. Trouble is, these people often
have better chops that I do (not that hard to achieve).
-
Bruce K. H. Kau[EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Aina Haina, Honolulu, Hawai'i
"Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning ..."

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

[Finale] Rythmic Notation goes south

[A-NO-NE Music]

I forgot to ask about this.

When you open older Fin file, I often find rhythmic notation is all
screwed up, like slashes are much lower, and stems are away from the slashes.

Reloading current lib won't fix this.  The only solution, for me so far,
is to copy the data to a new file and rebuilt the doc.  Is there any
easier way?  I looked around the prefs if I missed anything but to no avail.

It is a bit frustrating that you will never be able to print your Finale
doc on later versions.  This is why I am trying to convert all of my
compositions to PDF last couple of month.

Feature Request.
If Finale file resource folk could contain the version if of the doc
created, I will bring my MacPlus (for v1.0), Quadra700 (for v2.6), and
PPC7100 (for v3.0) out of my closet.  I probably should install v3.2 on
my PPC8500/G3.  I have Fin98 on my PwrTwrProG3 but that's not enough
:-(

-- 

- Hiro

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


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

Re: [Finale] Music Theory/Duke Ellington

[Carl Dershem]

Bruce K H Kau wrote:
At 04:26 PM 2/10/2005 +0100, Daniel Wolf wrote:
There is a tremendous fear of music theory out there, with many 
musicians having the sense that music-theoretic discourse "kills the 
magic" of music making.
*sigh* I have run into more than my share of people who even say that
learning to read music (music theory at its most basic level) is not
important to their being able to make music. Trouble is, these people often
have better chops that I do (not that hard to achieve).
Chops will get you gigs, but reading well will git you MORE gigs.  And 
reading ANYTHING will get you a lot of gigs.

cd
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dershem/#
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale