Re: [Finale] Two "Simple" questions

[Bernard Nussbaumer]

2005/7/2, keith helgesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
















In Simple Entry, is there a way to;

 

1) Break or create beam between two notes  (Speedy
=   /)§
 
2) Show 'diatonic'
accidental.  
(Speedy=    *)
Ctrl-Shft- -  

You may find these shortcuts (and some others, too) if you look in the "Simple menu":
Simple/Simple Edit Commands/Modify Entry
or
Simple/Simple Edit Commands/Accidentals
...

This works at least with WinFin 2k4 (and later).

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

Re: [Finale] half rests in 6/4?

[Christopher Smith]

On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:08 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:



On Jun 30, 2005, at 9:55 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:



And "hemiolated" sounds like something you'd need Preparation H for!
;)


Well I do confess it is a googlewhackblat (the first I ever personally 
encountered)--but you had no trouble understanding my meaning, did 
you? And how else would you express the concept of "containing or 
exemplifying hemiola(s)"?





I agree with Andrew completely. But wasn't it Andrew who was 
complaining about "verbifying" nouns (the term itself is an example) 
sometime last year? But, hey, if the language NEEDS a verb where none 
existed before, why not use a noun that everyone knows already?


Christopher

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

Re: [Finale] half rests in 6/4? - back to the original question, please!

[Andrew Stiller]

On Jul 1, 2005, at 1:35 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


Well, I'm concerned about the idea that you would assume that Lully
wrote anything at all in 3/4. I don't know of any French music from
that period in which modern 3/4 occurs in the original sources, nor
any time signature with a 6 in it.


It's in 3/2, actually. _Bourgeois Gentilhomme_ Act 4 initiation scene. 
Solo voice in obvious 6/4 rhythm alternating w. chorus in half notes. 
You could look it up.


And BTW, my assumptions have nothing to do with it. It's  right there 
in black and white. You wanna argue w. _Grove_, go argue w. _Grove_.


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] Re: half rests in 6/4?

[Andrew Stiller]

On Jul 1, 2005, at 2:54 PM, Lee Actor wrote:


[snip]

lone 6/8  bar immediately
before rehearsal G in the first mvt. of Hindemith's _Symphonische
Metamorphosen_.




I agree that there is a potential metrical ambiguity in the passage you
cite, though musically I think it's clear that the eighth note stays 
the
same.  It's valuable to look at it inductively, i.e., how would 
Hindemith
have notated that measure if he wanted E = E, vs. how he would have 
notated
it if he had wanted the beat to remain constant?  In the latter case, 
it's

likely he would have written eighth note triplets in 2/4, while in the
former case he would have written just what he did write: 6/8 (or two
measures of 3/8, though I think 6/8 is more descriptive of the larger
metrical accent he had in mind).


Actually,  I completely agree with you on this--but clearly our view is 
not universally held. A similar problem is presented by the trio to the 
scherzo of Beethoven's 9th. Tradition has one bar of cut time equal 2 
bars of the preceding 3/4, but B's own  metronome  mark demands a tempo 
*twice as fast.* I played it once thus under Rene Leibowitz, and it was 
a revelation--much more exciting and  dramatic than the traditional 
way.


Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/

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

[Finale] GPO - a little disappointing

[Johannes Gebauer]

Since GPO has been the subject on this list a lot recently, I would like 
to voice my own opinion: Not nearly as good as I hoped.


I am particularly disappointed with the solo strings, which are in fact 
worse than Finale's own soundfont. I think I may go back to that, even 
putting up with the dreadfully out of tune violin, just because at least 
the sound is vaguely like a violin. GPO's solo strings don't seem to 
come even close to a natural solo string sound, or am I missing 
something? If I compare especially the cello with Finale's soundfont, 
the soundfont wins by a large margin.


The ensemble sounds in GPO are much better, though I can't quite follow 
the hype.


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

Re: [Finale] half rests in 6/4? - back to the original question, please!

[Andrew Stiller]

Has anyone mentioned the term "sesquialtera"? 

_New Grove_ again, article "Hemiola":

from Gk. hemiolios: 'the whole and a half'; Lat. sesquialtera). In early music theory, the ratio 3:2. In terms of musical pitch, when the string of the monochord was divided in this ratio the two lengths sounded the interval of a 5th. The term was also used from the 15th century to signify the substitution of three imperfect notes for two perfect ones... [the rest previously quoted by me].

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] Re: half rests in 6/4?

[Andrew Stiller]

On Jul 1, 2005, at 6:14 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:

 there are lots old editions out there with the order reversed (new 
value = old value).  I don't know why *anyone* ever thought that was a 
good way of indicating tempo shifts, but unfortunately, it's not 
uncommon.




It used to be absolutely standard, and actually was logical in terms of 
the way metronome marks are indicated: we say Q = 120, after all,  not 
120 = Q. But of course it was confusing and has been largely 
superseded. Me, I always use arrows except for cautionary "proportions" 
of the Q = Q type.


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] Re: half rests in 6/4?

[Phil Daley]

Interesting coincidence.
I went to the Boston Pops concert last night.
One of the numbers (Burt Bacharat) was in a fast 4.  It had some
obvious 6/4 (3/2) measures in it (with 3 half notes as the predominate
rhythm).
But Keith Lochart conducted right through them in 3/4, as though there
were 3 beats in the measure.  I wonder if that's how it was written
in the score?.
So, instead of listening to (and enjoying) the music, I got caught up in
the rhythmic hemiolas ;-)

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


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

RE: [Finale] Re: half rests in 6/4?

[Lee Actor]

> > [snip]
> >> lone 6/8  bar immediately
> >> before rehearsal G in the first mvt. of Hindemith's _Symphonische
> >> Metamorphosen_.
>
> >
> > I agree that there is a potential metrical ambiguity in the passage you
> > cite, though musically I think it's clear that the eighth note stays
> > the
> > same.  It's valuable to look at it inductively, i.e., how would
> > Hindemith
> > have notated that measure if he wanted E = E, vs. how he would have
> > notated
> > it if he had wanted the beat to remain constant?  In the latter case,
> > it's
> > likely he would have written eighth note triplets in 2/4, while in the
> > former case he would have written just what he did write: 6/8 (or two
> > measures of 3/8, though I think 6/8 is more descriptive of the larger
> > metrical accent he had in mind).
>
> Actually,  I completely agree with you on this--but clearly our view is
> not universally held. A similar problem is presented by the trio to the
> scherzo of Beethoven's 9th. Tradition has one bar of cut time equal 2
> bars of the preceding 3/4, but B's own  metronome  mark demands a tempo
> *twice as fast.* I played it once thus under Rene Leibowitz, and it was
> a revelation--much more exciting and  dramatic than the traditional
> way.
>
> Andrew Stiller

Wow, did the trio keep at W=116 the entire way?  That would be one frantic
performance!  I think the usual performing tradition works out in practice
to keeping the quarter note constant from the 3/4 to the trio.  Even with a
stringendo up to the trio, the tempo often relaxes a bit further in, so the
end result is usually about 1/3 slower than Beethoven indicates, not 1/2.
Even Toscanini, who had a reputation for scrupulously following Beethoven's
tempo marks, doesn't play the trio faster than W=84, though he starts the
scherzo out a little faster than the indicated dotted H=116.  It would be
fascinating to hear it played as written, which, if the quarter note is kept
constant, would mean the stringendo takes the tempo from dotted H=116 to
dotted H=155, equal to the trio's tempo of W=116.

Lee Actor
Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic
http://www.leeactor.com


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

Re: [Finale] Re: Open Recent...

[Noel Stoutenburg]

Brian Williams wrote:


On my Mac, I can't find "Advanced" in the program options. Is this a
windows-only thing?
 

Sorry, I was looking at an older version user interface. 


Select

Options > Program options > open.

The parameter "Number of recent files to open" is about 1/3 down the 
dialog box.


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

[Finale] 12/8 to 4/4

[Ryan Beard]

Hi all,

Is there an easy way to convert measures in 12/8 to
4/4?
I need the eighth-notes in 12/8 to convert
automatically to triplets in 4/4. I'd rather not have
to create all the triplets after I change the meter.
Hope someone can help - Thanks!

Ryan



 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] GPO - a little disappointing

[Darcy James Argue]

Wow.  I don't agree with that at all.

I do feel the solo violins in GPO are not as strong as they could be, 
but they are still far, far superior to the one in Finale's soundfont.  
And while the soundfont cello is adequate, I don't think it holds a 
candle to the GPO cello.  And, of course, nothing in Finale's sound 
font can compare to the variety of articulations and bow strokes and 
playing techniques in the GPO sample set.


What are your specific problems with the GPO instruments?  And how are 
you listening to them?  (Headphones, internal speaker, external 
speakers... )


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


On 02 Jul 2005, at 12:03 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:

Since GPO has been the subject on this list a lot recently, I would 
like to voice my own opinion: Not nearly as good as I hoped.


I am particularly disappointed with the solo strings, which are in 
fact worse than Finale's own soundfont. I think I may go back to that, 
even putting up with the dreadfully out of tune violin, just because 
at least the sound is vaguely like a violin. GPO's solo strings don't 
seem to come even close to a natural solo string sound, or am I 
missing something? If I compare especially the cello with Finale's 
soundfont, the soundfont wins by a large margin.


The ensemble sounds in GPO are much better, though I can't quite 
follow the hype.


Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
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] GPO - a little disappointing

[Johannes Gebauer]

I am listening with headphones or occasionally speakers. I am not sure 
how you get much benefit from the variety of bow strokes in Finale. My 
main problem is that fast notes simply don't work well at all, there is 
not enough attack on each note, too lush for using them in a string 
quartet or similar. And the sound of the solo strings just doesn't 
remind me much of solo strings at all.


Perhaps I would have to spend more time on the Finale files, but that's 
precisely what I hoped to avoid with GPO.


Johannes

Darcy James Argue schrieb:

Wow.  I don't agree with that at all.

I do feel the solo violins in GPO are not as strong as they could be, 
but they are still far, far superior to the one in Finale's soundfont.  
And while the soundfont cello is adequate, I don't think it holds a 
candle to the GPO cello.  And, of course, nothing in Finale's sound font 
can compare to the variety of articulations and bow strokes and playing 
techniques in the GPO sample set.


What are your specific problems with the GPO instruments?  And how are 
you listening to them?  (Headphones, internal speaker, external 
speakers... )


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


On 02 Jul 2005, at 12:03 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:

Since GPO has been the subject on this list a lot recently, I would 
like to voice my own opinion: Not nearly as good as I hoped.


I am particularly disappointed with the solo strings, which are in 
fact worse than Finale's own soundfont. I think I may go back to that, 
even putting up with the dreadfully out of tune violin, just because 
at least the sound is vaguely like a violin. GPO's solo strings don't 
seem to come even close to a natural solo string sound, or am I 
missing something? If I compare especially the cello with Finale's 
soundfont, the soundfont wins by a large margin.


The ensemble sounds in GPO are much better, though I can't quite 
follow the hype.


Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
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



--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

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

Re: [Finale] GPO - a little disappointing

[Darcy James Argue]

Johannes,

You need to use the keyswitched instruments and download the library of 
keyswitching Finale expressions from the GPO website.  This makes it 
very easy to switch from legato, sustained articulations (default) to 
the "alternating bows" articulations (which you need for fast or 
detached passages).


It sounds like you might be happy using the "alternating bows" 
articulation exclusively.  If so, you just have to put an invisible 
keyswitching expression that triggers that style of articulation at the 
beginning of each part in your score.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


On 02 Jul 2005, at 4:59 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:

I am listening with headphones or occasionally speakers. I am not sure 
how you get much benefit from the variety of bow strokes in Finale. My 
main problem is that fast notes simply don't work well at all, there 
is not enough attack on each note, too lush for using them in a string 
quartet or similar. And the sound of the solo strings just doesn't 
remind me much of solo strings at all.


Perhaps I would have to spend more time on the Finale files, but 
that's precisely what I hoped to avoid with GPO.


Johannes

Darcy James Argue schrieb:

Wow.  I don't agree with that at all.
I do feel the solo violins in GPO are not as strong as they could be, 
but they are still far, far superior to the one in Finale's 
soundfont.  And while the soundfont cello is adequate, I don't think 
it holds a candle to the GPO cello.  And, of course, nothing in 
Finale's sound font can compare to the variety of articulations and 
bow strokes and playing techniques in the GPO sample set.
What are your specific problems with the GPO instruments?  And how 
are you listening to them?  (Headphones, internal speaker, external 
speakers... )

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 02 Jul 2005, at 12:03 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Since GPO has been the subject on this list a lot recently, I would 
like to voice my own opinion: Not nearly as good as I hoped.


I am particularly disappointed with the solo strings, which are in 
fact worse than Finale's own soundfont. I think I may go back to 
that, even putting up with the dreadfully out of tune violin, just 
because at least the sound is vaguely like a violin. GPO's solo 
strings don't seem to come even close to a natural solo string 
sound, or am I missing something? If I compare especially the cello 
with Finale's soundfont, the soundfont wins by a large margin.


The ensemble sounds in GPO are much better, though I can't quite 
follow the hype.


Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
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


--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
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] GPO - a little disappointing

[David W. Fenton]

On 2 Jul 2005 at 17:11, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> You need to use the keyswitched instruments and download the library
> of keyswitching Finale expressions from the GPO website.  This makes
> it very easy to switch from legato, sustained articulations (default)
> to the "alternating bows" articulations (which you need for fast or
> detached passages).
> 
> It sounds like you might be happy using the "alternating bows" 
> articulation exclusively.  If so, you just have to put an invisible
> keyswitching expression that triggers that style of articulation at
> the beginning of each part in your score.

Could someone put up an MP3 of a sample demonstration of some of 
these? I'm unable to use any of it because my PC is too old (500MHz, 
Win2K, 768MBs), but someday that won't be the case.

Ideally, a notation sample plus the MP3 would be ideal.

I'd be happy to supply a Finale file for creating the demo.

-- 
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] Two "Simple" questions

[keith helgesen]

Thanks Bernard- but I guess I should have
mentioned- I’m on Win Fin 2001 (The old steam version!)

 

All I have in Simple Menu is “Check
for extra notes”, and “Playback”

 

Any other thoughts- or anyone else??

 

Cheers anyway.

 

K

 



Keith Helgesen.

Director of Music, Canberra City Band.

Ph: (02) 62910787. Band Mob. 0439-620587

Private Mob 0417-042171



-Original
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bernard Nussbaumer
Sent: Saturday, 2 July 2005 5:17
PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Two
"Simple" questions

 

 



2005/7/2, keith helgesen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:



In Simple Entry, is there a way to;

 

1) Break or create beam between two notes  (Speedy
=   /)





§
 





 



2) Show 'diatonic'
accidental.  
(Speedy=    *)








Ctrl-Shft- -  






You may find these shortcuts (and some others, too) if you look in the
"Simple menu":
Simple/Simple Edit Commands/Modify Entry
or
Simple/Simple Edit Commands/Accidentals
...

This works at least with WinFin 2k4 (and later).

Bernard

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.8/37 - Release Date: 1/07/2005








--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.8/37 - Release Date: 1/07/2005
 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] half rests in 6/4? - back to the original question, please!

[Christopher Smith]

On Jun 30, 2005, at 2:44 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


On 30 Jun 2005 at 0:14, Christopher Smith wrote:


On Jun 29, 2005, at 11:34 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


I don't know of anyone who uses "subdominant" to refer to ii, for
instance. They may talk about "subdominant function" chords, or the
group of chords that function as "predominants" but I don't hear
anyone explicitly calling a non-IV chord a subdominant.



You might have missed my backpedalling on that one. I meant to say 
there is a tendency (right or wrong) to say "subdominant" or 
"predominant" when what is really meant is subdominant or predominant 
AREA or FUNCTION. Confusion can arise from the use of the same term in 
two different contexts.






Picardy third (now often applied to ANY major-quality resolution chord
where a minor one is expected in the key, wrongly or not)


Well, that's one where I don't know of any more limited definition.



It used to be applied only to the i chord in a minor key, at a cadence. 
But the effect shows up so much more often that it can be used on 
pretty much any normally-minor chord, though traditional theorists 
might not apply the term "Picardy" to it.





Toncisation (used to mean only with a secondary dominant, now can mean
articulating a temporary tonic by any applicable means) (on that
subject, what do you call a plagal resolution to a temporary tonic? A
"plagalisation"? I shudder at it, but it IS logical. Musicians who
play gospel (where it is most common) call it "backcycling", but that
is a bit obtuse IMHO. Drawing on "applied dominant" perhaps "applied
predominant"? Not clear. Applied how?)


I don't recognize the validity of your claim of the original
restriction -- that makes no sense. It could be that the term was
first used to talk about those progressions, but that doesn't mean it
can't easily be adapted to cover other progressions as well.




I agree that the goal is similar, but shouldn't there be a distinction 
between approaching a chord by its dominant, and approaching it by some 
other means? For that matter, I would LOVE to include viidim7/X as a 
tonicisation (the regular one, using a dominant-area chord) but my 
theory teachers didn't recognize it as a tonicisation. Maybe things 
have changed a bit since then, or maybe I just had REALLY conservative 
theory teachers (I mostly had problems understanding the connections 
between what I was playing and writing, and what I was analysing in 
theory class. It took me YEARS to work that out!)




If the term were "dominanticization" then you'd have a point.



Yes, I suppose you're right on that one.

Christopher

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

Re: [Finale] Subdominant-was half rests in 6/4

[Christopher Smith]

On Jun 30, 2005, at 6:45 PM, Harold Owen wrote:

For some time I have used the term "pre-dominant" (I think the hyphen 
is helpful) for a number of harmonies that can precede the dominant - 
N6, A6, V/V, vi, ii, Vo7/V, bVII, etc. (including the addition of 
7ths). The term "subdominant" really should be restricted to the 
harmony built on the 4th scale degree. "Subdominant function" seems 
messy to me since an authentic cadence does not require a IV or IV 
substitute.


Hal Owen



Hal,

Thanks for the clear response.

I see you lump what I would have (reluctantly) called "subdominant 
function" under the term "IV substitute." While I have no beef with the 
historical accuracy of this term, it seems a bit archaic when applied 
to jazz, where the basic cadence is ii-V rather than IV-V. For that 
matter, I wish I had a easy-to-spell, -pronounce, and -understand term 
that included ALL the chords with a fourth scale degree but no leading 
tone, including all the chromatically-altered ones, and specifically 
EXCLUDING the dominant-area chords V7, vii7, viidim7, bII7.


I have applied the term "plagal" to any chord containing the scale 4th 
but not the leading tone that goes directly to I. I know it is not in 
the tradition, where only the IV to I gets that term, but I think (as 
David F seems to agree) that the term can be expanded to include more 
modern examples.


Please understand that I am NOT trying to change the way traditional 
theory is taught – to the contrary, I am trying to make as many 
connections between classical and jazz practice as possible. But in the 
jazz idiom when, say, a bVII7 to I resolution is SO much more common 
than the N6 (which even has its own name!) but such common chords do 
NOT have specific names, it motivates me to come up with some new 
terms.


Christopher


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

[Finale] Mac converter for Type 3 to Type 1 font?

[Claudio Pompili]

I'm looking for a Mac font Type 3 to Type 1 converter.

I'm reviewing some old Finale files where I had used some Type 3 
fonts (eg Newport etc) and a particularly useful home brew of 
Petrucci 71pt using Fontographer 3.0.2 where I created a composite 
Type 3 font.


Unfortunately, Mac OSX doesn't support Type 3 and I'm desperately 
trying to find a suitable converter. I've tried Fontographer 4.1.5, 
Font Doctor X 7.0.1 and the older Metamorphesis and FontMonger but 
with little joy.


It's looking like I might have to start again with my home brew font 
but I'd appreciate any leads, thanks

--


Claudio Pompili
composer, sound designer, music consultant
http://users.airnet.com.au/~claudio/
AMC http://www.amcoz.com.au

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

Re: [Finale] Subdominant-was half rests in 6/4

[Harold Owen]

From Christopher:


On Jun 30, 2005, at 6:45 PM, Harold Owen wrote:

For some time I have used the term "pre-dominant" (I think the 
hyphen is helpful) for a number of harmonies that can precede the 
dominant - N6, A6, V/V, vi, ii, Vo7/V, bVII, etc. (including the 
addition of 7ths). The term "subdominant" really should be 
restricted to the harmony built on the 4th scale degree. 
"Subdominant function" seems messy to me since an authentic cadence 
does not require a IV or IV substitute.


Hal Owen



Hal,

Thanks for the clear response.

I see you lump what I would have (reluctantly) called "subdominant 
function" under the term "IV substitute." While I have no beef with 
the historical accuracy of this term, it seems a bit archaic when 
applied to jazz, where the basic cadence is ii-V rather than IV-V. 
For that matter, I wish I had a easy-to-spell, -pronounce, and 
-understand term that included ALL the chords with a fourth scale 
degree but no leading tone, including all the chromatically-altered 
ones, and specifically EXCLUDING the dominant-area chords V7, vii7, 
viidim7, bII7.


I have applied the term "plagal" to any chord containing the scale 
4th but not the leading tone that goes directly to I. I know it is 
not in the tradition, where only the IV to I gets that term, but I 
think (as David F seems to agree) that the term can be expanded to 
include more modern examples.


Please understand that I am NOT trying to change the way traditional 
theory is taught - to the contrary, I am trying to make as many 
connections between classical and jazz practice as possible. But in 
the jazz idiom when, say, a bVII7 to I resolution is SO much more 
common than the N6 (which even has its own name!) but such common 
chords do NOT have specific names, it motivates me to come up with 
some new terms.


Christopher


Dear Christopher,

I'm with you completely. I think classical theory has made too much 
of the IV-V-I cadential formula when there are so many other 
possibilities owing to the many ways there are to approach the 
dominant. Bach, for example, very often uses ii6/5, and in the 
Classical Period, the usual cadence involves tonic 6/4-V-I (the 
Schenkerians' view of tonic 6/4 as "not a chord" notwithstanding). 
The circle of fifths cascading cadence V/V-V-I belongs to late 
19th-early 20th century, including popular musics such as rags and 
barbershop quartet harmony - and I would guess that might also 
include early jazz and might explain the fact that ii-V-I is so 
common in jazz harmony. As I mentioned, I prefer the term 
"pre-dominant" to "subdominant function."


It's interesting that you mention the plagal cadence. To me the 
modern extension of what might function as plagal would be a chord 
that includes the tonic and not the leading tone. Cadences such as 
vi-I, bVI-I, A6-I, bVII9-I, and even V11-I (a Debussy favorite) might 
be considered as plagal.


Hal
--
Harold Owen
2830 Emerald St., Eugene, OR 97403
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Visit my web site at:
http://uoregon.edu/~hjowen
FAX: (509) 461-3608
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] GPO - a little disappointing

[A-NO-NE Music]

I agree with the original poster and I gave the same comment the day I
received GPO.  Solo instruments are not usable, while ensemble is quite
good and usable.  Tho I was not instantiating in Finale but just
sequencing for my audition purpose.

I used to do MIDI orchestra sequencing for large chunk of my income so I
know what I am doing (why they use CC1 instead of CC11 by default was
something I was puzzled with).  After auditioning GPO, I had to go hack
to two of my K2600Rs those which take care of my needs.  I am also
waiting for MOTU Symphony Instrument VI to be released.  In general,
MOTU doesn't compromise the sound but costs the CPU hit so I have to see
if it is usable for my need.

By the way, it is true GPO sounds better when you listen with computer
speakers, but my setup is Genelec Active Monitor with sub via Metric
Halo 2882+DSP as the D/A Converter, which reveals details that can be
annoying when source is not descent :-(

But for the money I paid, I won't blame GPO :-)

-- 

- Hiro

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


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

[Finale] preparing dominant chords

[Chuck Israels]

Hi guys,

My 2c on this matter.  I teach my students that the ii7 chord that  
precedes a V7 is functioning as the V7 with a suspended 4th and the  
5th of the V chord in the bass, and that it's part of the dominant  
function.


Barry Harris teaches improvisers to ignore "going from ii to V."  He  
says, "How can you practice ii -Vs?  ii and V are the same family,  
that's incest!"  This he gets from deep understanding of the way  
Parker and Powell had to be thinking in order to come up with the  
melodic contours in their music - insight he derives from music "fact."


Anytime you name something, you put it in a box, which is a good  
thing because it's there to be found the next time you need it, but a  
bad thing too, because it usually limits the way you experience the  
thing you named.


Just thoughts stimulated by the discussion of subdominant function.

Chuck



On Jul 2, 2005, at 8:01 PM, Harold Owen wrote:


From Christopher:



On Jun 30, 2005, at 6:45 PM, Harold Owen wrote:


For some time I have used the term "pre-dominant" (I think the  
hyphen is helpful) for a number of harmonies that can precede the  
dominant - N6, A6, V/V, vi, ii, Vo7/V, bVII, etc. (including the  
addition of 7ths). The term "subdominant" really should be  
restricted to the harmony built on the 4th scale degree.  
"Subdominant function" seems messy to me since an authentic  
cadence does not require a IV or IV substitute.


Hal Owen




Hal,

Thanks for the clear response.

I see you lump what I would have (reluctantly) called "subdominant  
function" under the term "IV substitute." While I have no beef  
with the historical accuracy of this term, it seems a bit archaic  
when applied to jazz, where the basic cadence is ii-V rather than  
IV-V. For that matter, I wish I had a easy-to-spell, -pronounce,  
and -understand term that included ALL the chords with a fourth  
scale degree but no leading tone, including all the chromatically- 
altered ones, and specifically EXCLUDING the dominant-area chords  
V7, vii7, viidim7, bII7.


I have applied the term "plagal" to any chord containing the scale  
4th but not the leading tone that goes directly to I. I know it is  
not in the tradition, where only the IV to I gets that term, but I  
think (as David F seems to agree) that the term can be expanded to  
include more modern examples.


Please understand that I am NOT trying to change the way  
traditional theory is taught - to the contrary, I am trying to  
make as many connections between classical and jazz practice as  
possible. But in the jazz idiom when, say, a bVII7 to I resolution  
is SO much more common than the N6 (which even has its own name!)  
but such common chords do NOT have specific names, it motivates me  
to come up with some new terms.


Christopher



Dear Christopher,

I'm with you completely. I think classical theory has made too much  
of the IV-V-I cadential formula when there are so many other  
possibilities owing to the many ways there are to approach the  
dominant. Bach, for example, very often uses ii6/5, and in the  
Classical Period, the usual cadence involves tonic 6/4-V-I (the  
Schenkerians' view of tonic 6/4 as "not a chord" notwithstanding).  
The circle of fifths cascading cadence V/V-V-I belongs to late 19th- 
early 20th century, including popular musics such as rags and  
barbershop quartet harmony - and I would guess that might also  
include early jazz and might explain the fact that ii-V-I is so  
common in jazz harmony. As I mentioned, I prefer the term "pre- 
dominant" to "subdominant function."


It's interesting that you mention the plagal cadence. To me the  
modern extension of what might function as plagal would be a chord  
that includes the tonic and not the leading tone. Cadences such as  
vi-I, bVI-I, A6-I, bVII9-I, and even V11-I (a Debussy favorite)  
might be considered as plagal.


Hal
--
Harold Owen
2830 Emerald St., Eugene, OR 97403
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Visit my web site at:
http://uoregon.edu/~hjowen
FAX: (509) 461-3608
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale



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] Subdominant-was half rests in 6/4

[Christopher Smith]

On Jul 2, 2005, at 11:01 PM, Harold Owen wrote:




Dear Christopher,

I'm with you completely. I think classical theory has made too much of 
the IV-V-I cadential formula when there are so many other 
possibilities owing to the many ways there are to approach the 
dominant. Bach, for example, very often uses ii6/5, and in the 
Classical Period, the usual cadence involves tonic 6/4-V-I (the 
Schenkerians' view of tonic 6/4 as "not a chord" notwithstanding).


Hah! Funny you should mention that. In jazz, one approach to analysis 
groups the iim7 with the V7, so that they are essentially 
interchangeable. A progression of Dm7-G7-Cmaj7 (one measure each) can 
be reduced to 2 measures of G7 resolving to C, and vice versa. NONE of 
the predominants are considered to be anything more than an 
ornamentation of the dominant. V7/V and viidim7/V ARE considered to be 
functionally different chords, because they contain a leading tone to 
the V. Thus the distinction in jazz between sub-dominant function and 
ANY pre-dominant.


I have often suspected that jazz musicians as a group are agnostic 
Schenkerians. That is, they would probably agree with a lot of what 
Schenker had to say if they had it explained to them credibly.




The circle of fifths cascading cadence V/V-V-I belongs to late 
19th-early 20th century, including popular musics such as rags and 
barbershop quartet harmony - and I would guess that might also include 
early jazz and might explain the fact that ii-V-I is so common in jazz 
harmony. As I mentioned, I prefer the term "pre-dominant" to 
"subdominant function."


It's interesting that you mention the plagal cadence. To me the modern 
extension of what might function as plagal would be a chord that 
includes the tonic and not the leading tone. Cadences such as vi-I, 
bVI-I, A6-I, bVII9-I, and even V11-I (a Debussy favorite) might be 
considered as plagal.





Hmm, interesting that you mention some chords that do NOT contain the 
4th of the key, which I would have omitted from my list of plagal 
resolutions. While I see we are in agreement about the lack of leading 
tone being an important characteristic, I hadn't thought of some of the 
chords on your list as plagal (which I was restricting to those that 
contain the 4th) such as vi, bVI, and A6.


In my classes I classify vi-I as "weak" by virtue of so containing many 
common tones, which means that it should generally be restricted to 
strong-weak metric stresses, unless a gentle "new-agey" harmonic 
movement is needed, which pretty much all but removes it from the list 
of effective cadences. If you have any examples of effective cadences 
involving direct vi-I, I would be happy to revise my opinions on that. 
Any idiom at all is welcome, as I try to make connections between jazz, 
classical, and popular/folk/rock as much as possible.


In my little world, bVI-I is fine (also bVImaj7), as is A6-I (or as we 
call it in jazz removed from its pre-dominant status, bVI7), but I put 
them in their own class for teaching purposes, not in the plagal 
category.


Is the inclusion of the tonic in the 2nd last chord important in your 
ears for the plagal definition? Would a resolution such as ii-I apply, 
even though it doesn't contain the tonic? Or bVII7-I (without the 9th)? 
Or bVIImaj7-I? How about bvii7-I (that's Bbm7 in the key of C)? What 
about the 4th degree? Do you think it has the importance I am 
attributing to it?


Christopher

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

Re: [Finale] Subdominant-was half rests in 6/4

[Chuck Israels]

On Jul 2, 2005, at 9:02 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:I have often suspected that jazz musicians as a group are agnostic Schenkerians. That is, they would probably agree with a lot of what Schenker had to say if they had it explained to them credibly.Bill Evans studied Shenkerian analysis at Mannes and found it helpful, if I remember his comments correctly.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