Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Darcy James Argue]

Mark,

Obviously, the nature of the amplification depends on the nature of  
the music. For some music, subtle amplification is just meant to  
bring you closer to the instruments -- like Reich's "Music for 18  
Instruments", in which everyone is amplified. The sweeping, dramatic  
crescendos and diminuendos are only possible with amplification.  
Here, the ideal amplification is very subtle and doesn't change the  
fundamental character of the instruments at all. Instead, it creates  
an acoustically impossible space, so that it sounds as if your ear is  
just a few inches away from *all* of the instruments. It's the audio  
equivalent of close-up photography.


I just had a show at Roulette featuring violin(/ehru), cello, koto,  
two percussionists, two multi-reed players (I went with oboe and bass  
clarinet) and laptop. Obviously, we needed amplification -- a fair  
bit for the violin and cello (especially in pizz. passages), a little  
less for the koto, just a touch for the winds, and none at all for  
the percussion. (The laptop player chose to use his own amp instead  
of the house PA.) But the sound people at Roulette actually know what  
they are doing, soundwise, so the amplification was virtually  
undetectable by the audience. They just heard a balanced sound, most  
of it acoustic, with just a touch of subtle reinforcement for the  
instruments that needed it in order to create a balanced sound. You  
wouldn't have know the PA was even on unless you went and put your  
ear right against it -- or if you knew how hard it was to balance  
that combination of instruments without amplification.


In other circumstances, you may want a different type of  
amplification, and I think it's perfectly legitimate to deliberately  
seek to alter the sound of an acoustic instrument. The hamon muted  
trumpet is a great and uncontroversial example of that kind of  
technique -- without amplification, a trumpet played with harmon mute  
sounds *nothing* like the expressive, intimate sound we associate  
with Milles Davis recordings. Acoustically, the harmon is thin and  
tinny, totally inexpressive and barely audible. But if you stick a  
microphone right in the bell of the harmon mute, suddenly it's  
possible to hear the expressive mellow center of the sound, and the  
bright metallic buzz becomes just color around the edges, instead of  
being the only sound you hear. Miles was so successful using this  
technique that it's become totally standard and unobjectionable --  
but amplification opens up many such possibilities, for many  
different instruments. Why be bound to the acoustic sound if that's  
not what you want? Amplification is not somehow immoral or impure  
(like, didn't Dylan settle this question back in 1965?), and playing  
purely acoustically shouldn't be an end in itself. If the sound you  
are looking for can only be achieved without amplification, by all  
means, put the PA away. But there's no reason to assume that acoustic  
music is prima facie aesthetically superior to music that requires  
some form of amplification to get its point across.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY



On 08 May 2007, at 1:37 AM, Mark D Lew wrote:



On May 7, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:

I wlll never understand the anti-amplification fundamentalists.  
Like any other aesthetic endeavor, there is good amplification and  
bad amplification.


I come out of the opera world, which is populated by anti- 
amplification fundamentalists.  (I should clarify: the die-hard  
opera FANS are anti-amplification fundamentalists. The performers,  
on the whole, are not nearly so rigid.)


I thoroughly agree with you that there is good amplification and  
bad amplification.  To me -- and maybe to you, too? -- the measure  
of good amplification is how unnoticeable it is.  For me, it's an  
aesthetic thing.  I just like the sound of live instruments.  I  
don't like amplified sound, and I hate poorly amplified sound.  The  
more it sounds like amplified, the less I like it.  If they manage  
to amplify in a way that I almost can't tell the difference, that's  
pretty good.


Funny thing about the opera snobs -- as much as they rail against  
any amplification of the voice, they adore all their perfectly  
mastered CD recordings.  Not me.  I don't much care for recorded  
music either.  It doesn't satisfy me like live instruments do.  I'd  
rather go hear a crummy community orchestra live than listen to the  
finest recording in my living room (and that in spite of the fact  
that I'm hermit type who generally prefers staying home to going out).


The nearer to the instruments the better.  I don't much miss  
attending symphony concerts. I do miss being in the room when the  
orchestra rehearses.


I don't like electric guitars either. Bleah. Probably my least  
favorite instrument.


mdl
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shs

Re: [Finale] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[Mark D Lew]

On May 7, 2007, at 10:22 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:

Prior to about 1870, the rule was that an accidental applies to all  
octaves within its measure. Since then the rule is that it applies  
only to the octave in which it was written. The problem is that the  
classical standard repertoire is dominated by pieces written to the  
old rule, and so may improperly carry it over to more recent work.


Thank you for spelling this out, Andrew.  The context of the original  
post it made it sound like it ought to be obvious to everyone, but  
when I read it I realize I genuinely didn't know what the rule  
was ... probably because I've done plenty of work on either side 1870.


But I can't recall a case where I've ever been unsure what the note  
is due to this.  In some music, it's obvious what is wanted from the  
context.  In anything else, the editor was kind enough to include  
courtesy accidentals.


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

Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Mark D Lew]

On May 7, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:

I wlll never understand the anti-amplification fundamentalists.  
Like any other aesthetic endeavor, there is good amplification and  
bad amplification.


I come out of the opera world, which is populated by anti- 
amplification fundamentalists.  (I should clarify: the die-hard opera  
FANS are anti-amplification fundamentalists. The performers, on the  
whole, are not nearly so rigid.)


I thoroughly agree with you that there is good amplification and bad  
amplification.  To me -- and maybe to you, too? -- the measure of  
good amplification is how unnoticeable it is.  For me, it's an  
aesthetic thing.  I just like the sound of live instruments.  I don't  
like amplified sound, and I hate poorly amplified sound.  The more it  
sounds like amplified, the less I like it.  If they manage to amplify  
in a way that I almost can't tell the difference, that's pretty good.


Funny thing about the opera snobs -- as much as they rail against any  
amplification of the voice, they adore all their perfectly mastered  
CD recordings.  Not me.  I don't much care for recorded music  
either.  It doesn't satisfy me like live instruments do.  I'd rather  
go hear a crummy community orchestra live than listen to the finest  
recording in my living room (and that in spite of the fact that I'm  
hermit type who generally prefers staying home to going out).


The nearer to the instruments the better.  I don't much miss  
attending symphony concerts. I do miss being in the room when the  
orchestra rehearses.


I don't like electric guitars either. Bleah. Probably my least  
favorite instrument.


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

Re: [Finale] Hyphenating text underlay

[Mark D Lew]

On May 7, 2007, at 5:20 PM, John Howell wrote:

I would never accuse Mark of doing this deliberately, because I  
don't believe he would ever do so, but in the message below he  
carried what I actually said to a "reductio ad absurdam," setting  
up a sort of straw man,


I never meant to set up a straw man.  I simply took what you said at  
face value.


You wrote:


the notation should be as exact and unambiguous as possible


"As exact as possible" is a very extreme statement.  The point I was  
making is that you really can't mean that literally.  And your follow- 
up response now seems to corroborate that.


mdl


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

Re: Re(2): [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Christopher Smith]

If you don't mind staying soft, find a good drummer who can play  
softly. I heard Joey Baron (who can wail away with the loudest of  
them) play softly enough in a master class that we could hear the  
singer perfectly without a mic, and he swung like a mother!


If you ever want to get above a mp, then the viola will need to be  
amplified. This is tough to accomplish musically, and it changes the  
instrument (think of amplified bass and guitar; not the same  
instrument as the unamplified version, is it?)


Hopefully you will get good advice from Darcy's link. But tell your  
violist to be ready for some fussing around, as the sound will never  
be plug-and-play.


Christopher


On May 7, 2007, at 11:41 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:

You will need to either ditch the drummer and write exclusively  
hushed, intimate music -- or mic the viola. If this is a regular  
group, you should consider adding a sixth member -- the best  
soundperson you can find. They are worth their weight in gold.


You should also check out this YouTube video on options for cello  
amplification -- a lot of this is directly applicable to the viola:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBcykSiocO4

Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY



On 07 May 2007, at 10:10 PM, Leigh Daniels wrote:


Hi Chuck,

I've got a jazz quintet with double bass, piano, drums, trombone and
viola. Any suggestions about getting a balance between the bone  
and the
viola without amplifying the viola? I'm using Finale for the music  
(just

to keep this on-topic!).

We're going to be playing in a smallish space and I'd prefer not to
amplify anything.

**Leigh


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

Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Christopher Smith]

On May 7, 2007, at 7:25 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:

I wlll never understand the anti-amplification fundamentalists.  
Like any other aesthetic endeavor, there is good amplification and  
bad amplification. Good amplification is rare, but good anything is  
rare.


It's like the vinyl versus CD debate. The vinyl is CAPABLE of better  
fidelity, but it so rarely happens that in practice you are better  
off with a CD.


If the band CAN sound good without amplification, definitely forgo  
it, as it opens up a can of worms that only the best sound man can  
get through (nice mixed metaphor, there!)


Christopher



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

Re: Re(2): [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Darcy James Argue]

You will need to either ditch the drummer and write exclusively  
hushed, intimate music -- or mic the viola. If this is a regular  
group, you should consider adding a sixth member -- the best  
soundperson you can find. They are worth their weight in gold.


You should also check out this YouTube video on options for cello  
amplification -- a lot of this is directly applicable to the viola:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBcykSiocO4

Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY



On 07 May 2007, at 10:10 PM, Leigh Daniels wrote:


Hi Chuck,

I've got a jazz quintet with double bass, piano, drums, trombone and
viola. Any suggestions about getting a balance between the bone and  
the
viola without amplifying the viola? I'm using Finale for the music  
(just

to keep this on-topic!).

We're going to be playing in a smallish space and I'd prefer not to
amplify anything.

**Leigh

On Mon, May 7, 2007, Chuck Israels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


The only time I will allow microphones to be used in my performances
is for singers.  If I perform outdoors (which I try to avoid), it is
unavoidable and rarely sounds good to me.  Guitar amps - OK, a
necessity, bass amps almost never.  Amplified grand pianos - ugh.



___
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] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Darcy James Argue]

Chuck,

Everything you say makes perfect sense, and clearly you know best  
what's best for your own music. Obviously if you *want* the sound of  
distance, you wouldn't want to sabotage that with close-mic'ing.


However, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the Vanguard,  
by a happy accident, happens to be one of those incredibly rare jazz  
clubs with decent acoustics. Even so, my experience at the Vanguard  
always been much better up close than back at the bar. I saw  
Guillermo Klein's band there last year a couple of times, and the  
first time I was at the very back and wasn't much impressed. I went  
back again a few nights later, at the insistence of a friend, and in  
the the front row, the music was transfixing. I realized that I like  
to hear the music as the musicians playing it hear it, and good  
amplification makes that possible -- as in, makes it an *option*, if  
that sound is appropriate for the music -- for a greater number of  
people to have that experience, especially in venues with sub-par  
acoustics. If you're in an acoustically great space like Carnegie or  
the Konzertgebau, well, okay, that's one thing (and frequently  
amplification in those halls is ruinous). But you're in some random  
NYC basement or loft that happens to have a music series,  
amplification becomes essential.


It is also essential for allowing instruments not normally associated  
with jazz to participate on an equal footing. It just wouldn't be  
possible for Erik Friedlander to play in an ensemble that includes a  
drummer and horn players without having a mic on his cello to bring  
him up to a level where he can balance with a trumpet or tenor sax.  
Therefore, Erik has spent a lot of time and effort figuring out how  
to get the best possible amplified sound in a variety of situations.  
He actually had a blog post on this not long ago:


http://cellomakeitcount.blogspot.com/2007/04/live-sound-flexibility.html

Playing over the Jazz Standard I was struck again about how good it  
is to be a little flexible. I much prefer just using my microphone  
to play live but I was sitting in and the spot on stage chosen for  
me was in front of the drums. I like being near the drummer, that's  
where the action is! But it makes it tough to use my Schoeps mic as  
the sound man gets a lot of drums and not too much cello..I hate  
not being heard.


So I had my Realist strapped on and I had brought my Grace 101  
preamp which I used with the pickup. The mic was setup away from  
the drummer for use in quieter moments. If you have a good sound  
person (thanks Aaron!) this can work.


Playing cello in a live situation with drums, guitar is tough. The  
cello lives in the mid-range and so do all those other instruments  
so, unlike a violin, you don't have a sonic spectrum to yourself.  
Having the pickup is a real help, even if it's not the greatest sound.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY



On 07 May 2007, at 9:42 PM, Chuck Israels wrote:



On May 7, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:

I wlll never understand the anti-amplification fundamentalists.  
Like any other aesthetic endeavor, there is good amplification and  
bad amplification. Good amplification is rare, but good anything  
is rare. Good amplification can actually allow for a more intimate  
sound, bringing the instruments closer to the listener than would  
otherwise be possible. What amplification did for singers (the  
artistry of Billie Holliday or Frank Sinatra would be impossible  
without amplification), it can also do for instruments -- think of  
Miles Davis's harmon mute sound, which is vastly more expressive  
than a harmon mute played without amplification. It makes it  
possible to bring together fresh and distinctive instrumental  
combinations that would not be possible to balance acoustically.  
Amplification is what makes it possible to have a rewarding  
listening experience in spaces that were not designed with  
acoustics in mind -- for example, every jazz club ever.




Yes, I forgot harmon muted trumpet in a solo role in front of a  
rhythm section.  No Mic - no chance.


But I have played in many jazz clubs where the theory that  
squeezing the sound of the band through microphones into wires and  
amplifiers in order to "bring the sound closer" didn't do what it  
was supposed to do.  And it is ludicrous to think that a Steinway  
or a tenor saxophone is unable to reach from the bandstand at the  
Village Vanguard to the last guy standing at the bar.  (All that  
mics do there is encourage the customers to talk louder.)  I didn't  
use an amp or mic in that club when playing there with Bill Evans,  
nor in the Concertgebau in Amsterdam (something like 3000 seats) ,  
or at Carnegie Hall with Benny Goodman.  This is a choice made from  
my own esthetic experience.  Others may choose otherwise, but it  
inevitably has a less powerful emotional effect on me.


Case in point: I write for the

Re: Re(2): [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Chuck Israels]

Arggh!  hard to balance.  Trombonist play soft - with various mutes.

String quartets are balanced - jazz quartets are not, but they can be  
- with careful playing on everyone's part.  By careful, I don't mean  
passionless, nor even that there should not be moments when some  
instruments drown out others.  There can be drama in the  
juxtaposition of viola with drums, but the drama must be handled with  
care.


It's an interesting problem and should stimulate interesting solutions.

Good Luck,

Chuck


On May 7, 2007, at 7:10 PM, Leigh Daniels wrote:


Hi Chuck,

I've got a jazz quintet with double bass, piano, drums, trombone and
viola. Any suggestions about getting a balance between the bone and  
the
viola without amplifying the viola? I'm using Finale for the music  
(just

to keep this on-topic!).

We're going to be playing in a smallish space and I'd prefer not to
amplify anything.

**Leigh

On Mon, May 7, 2007, Chuck Israels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


The only time I will allow microphones to be used in my performances
is for singers.  If I perform outdoors (which I try to avoid), it is
unavoidable and rarely sounds good to me.  Guitar amps - OK, a
necessity, bass amps almost never.  Amplified grand pianos - ugh.



___
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] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[keith helgesen]

Hi Noel- 
You may- or may not- appreciate the fact that the following paragraph, with
only very minor editing, has been re-typed- enlarged, laminated and posted
up in my Bandroom.
Full credit is given to you as the author.

Brilliant summary of what makes a note 'right'

Thanks

Keith in OZ

Keith Helgesen.
Ph: (02) 62910787. 
Mob 0417-042171

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Noel Stoutenburg
Sent: Tuesday, 8 May 2007 4:15 AM
 
I have contemplated at times 
creating a three dimensional sculpture of a quaver, divided like a 
jigsaw puzzle into several parts, as a visual exposition of the multiple 
characteristics of the "correct" note: origin, pitch, duration, volume, 
timbre, stress, syllable, ornamentation, and termination. The fact is if 
any one of these characteristics is not right (except perhaps in 
instrumental music, where the syllable is usually of no consequence), 
the note is not right.



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

Re(2): [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Leigh Daniels]

Hi Chuck,

I've got a jazz quintet with double bass, piano, drums, trombone and
viola. Any suggestions about getting a balance between the bone and the
viola without amplifying the viola? I'm using Finale for the music (just
to keep this on-topic!).

We're going to be playing in a smallish space and I'd prefer not to
amplify anything.

**Leigh

On Mon, May 7, 2007, Chuck Israels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>The only time I will allow microphones to be used in my performances  
>is for singers.  If I perform outdoors (which I try to avoid), it is  
>unavoidable and rarely sounds good to me.  Guitar amps - OK, a  
>necessity, bass amps almost never.  Amplified grand pianos - ugh.


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

Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Chuck Israels]

On May 7, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:

I wlll never understand the anti-amplification fundamentalists.  
Like any other aesthetic endeavor, there is good amplification and  
bad amplification. Good amplification is rare, but good anything is  
rare. Good amplification can actually allow for a more intimate  
sound, bringing the instruments closer to the listener than would  
otherwise be possible. What amplification did for singers (the  
artistry of Billie Holliday or Frank Sinatra would be impossible  
without amplification), it can also do for instruments -- think of  
Miles Davis's harmon mute sound, which is vastly more expressive  
than a harmon mute played without amplification. It makes it  
possible to bring together fresh and distinctive instrumental  
combinations that would not be possible to balance acoustically.  
Amplification is what makes it possible to have a rewarding  
listening experience in spaces that were not designed with  
acoustics in mind -- for example, every jazz club ever.




Yes, I forgot harmon muted trumpet in a solo role in front of a  
rhythm section.  No Mic - no chance.


But I have played in many jazz clubs where the theory that squeezing  
the sound of the band through microphones into wires and amplifiers  
in order to "bring the sound closer" didn't do what it was supposed  
to do.  And it is ludicrous to think that a Steinway or a tenor  
saxophone is unable to reach from the bandstand at the Village  
Vanguard to the last guy standing at the bar.  (All that mics do  
there is encourage the customers to talk louder.)  I didn't use an  
amp or mic in that club when playing there with Bill Evans, nor in  
the Concertgebau in Amsterdam (something like 3000 seats) , or at  
Carnegie Hall with Benny Goodman.  This is a choice made from my own  
esthetic experience.  Others may choose otherwise, but it inevitably  
has a less powerful emotional effect on me.


Case in point: I write for the Metropole Orchestra so that the  
woodwinds and strings are balanced in the room.  That is different  
from the way almost all the other arrangers do it.  Then we play in  
reasonable sized halls without microphones (except for the recording  
mics), and I get the balance and effect that I want.  Fine - until  
the 8 measure solo I purposefully wrote for the lead trumpet player  
(at a comfortable mf), knowing he is at the back of the band, and  
that it will sound slightly distant, is changed by the sound engineer  
(in the recording) into an exaggerated, oversized, up-front, 2  
dimensional experience.  I don't suppose it makes any never mind to  
most listeners, but I wanted the depth and the balance I conceived.   
Bringing it "closer" to the listener did not bring the experience I  
tried to design closer, it prevented it from happening.


People who like amplified sound are free to choose it, and there is a  
lot of political and economic pressure in that direction.  (There are  
big investments in equipment and people making a living turning  
knobs.)  But, given the choice, I go for acoustic sound and balance  
almost every time.


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] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Darcy James Argue]

On 07 May 2007, at 9:18 PM, Chuck Israels wrote:


(on recordings, or through a microphone feed)


Chuck -- there is a *substantial* difference between the two. I don't  
think they can or should be conflated. Especially since good  
amplification is subtle and blends seamlessly with the acoustic sound.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY






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

Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Chuck Israels]

"Listening to music through speakers (on recordings, or through a  
microphone feed) is like getting kissed on the telephone."


Jerry Rosen - former associate concertmaster and pianist of the BSO  
(freely quoted).


"Not exactly - it's more like eating a picture of food."

Bill Dobbins - jazz pianist/arranger/composer (also freely quoted).

The only time I will allow microphones to be used in my performances  
is for singers.  If I perform outdoors (which I try to avoid), it is  
unavoidable and rarely sounds good to me.  Guitar amps - OK, a  
necessity, bass amps almost never.  Amplified grand pianos - ugh.


Chuck


On May 7, 2007, at 3:40 PM, John Howell wrote:


At 3:21 AM -0400 5/7/07, Raymond Horton wrote:
I don't see the fuss.  A guy is trying to prove he can replace  
_live_ musicians, but does so by posting  _recordings_, some of  
which are so badly reproduced they could never be mistaken for  
live players, even though the recordings were once made from live  
players.  His computerized recording sounds as good, or better, as  
some of the badly reproduced recordings.  This proves nothing as  
far as a computer replacing humans.  It proves that computer  
reproduced sound is inconsistent, no matter what the original source.


Put the computer producing the sounds in a blind test in the same  
room alternating with live musicians, _who are playing with no  
electronic amplification_.  That is the only test would mean  
anything.



Raymond Horton


Thank you, Raymond!!  My college ensemble carried a Roland digital  
piano on the road, and of course it was played through speakers.   
The regional orchestra I played with had a live jazz trio (very  
good, too!) as guest artists, using a large concert grand piano,  
but also miked and played through speakers.  My conclusion, after  
listening VERY critically, was that our Roland sounded just as good  
as the Steinway, when the Steinway was miked, even though it would  
never come close to the actual acoustic sound of the Steinway.


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


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] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[Aaron Rabushka]

It was interesting that when I produced my first round of recordings in the
Czech Republic they understood everything I wrote in Italian, not
necessarily what I wrote in English (e.g., "white keys"). To communicate
"rim shot" I had to rap my pencil against the side of the table at a slant.
Zawsze czekawy!

Aaron J. Rabushka
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://users.waymark.net/arabushk

- Original Message - 
From: "Randolph Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay


> I like how Donald Erb puts explanations in his scores. He doesn't
> make them too lengthy, but if the requests are unusual, he will often
> put an "!" at the end. Sometimes his comments are humorous. "You will
> sound like an insane monkey," and that kind of thing. It gives the
> musicians a laugh, but more importantly, it communicates the intent
> and spirit of the piece.
>
> Other times he writes about dynamic balance in places where
> traditional expressions don't quite convey what is wanted. For
> example, he might ask one player to match the volume of someone else,
> or "alter" another's sound, while a different player is told to
> always stay in the background. That's not quite the same as giving
> two musicians a forte marking and the other a piano, or using
> Hauptstimme and Nebenstimme, especially when you want the music to
> rise and fall, ebb and flow. Or when you want to create unusual
> mixtures of timbre. Erb's acoustic orchestrations have a lot in
> common with the way you make combinations of sounds and control the
> attack, delay, sustain and release in electronic instruments.
>
> With Erb's music, amongst many others, there is an exploration of
> instruments at their extremes. At the extremes you sometimes have to
> explain what the effort is like and what the result is. A flute, to
> use a simple example, played quickly at its low end is not very loud.
> Do you write "as loud as possible" or mp or what? There are two
> schools of thought when it comes to dynamics -- write the resultant
> dynamic or write the effort you want to go into it. A brief
> description can clear that up. Multiphonics are like that as well.
> Sometimes you have to blow your brains out just to get that quiet
> high partial to appear.
>
> The drawback to using a lot of blurbs and text blocks to explain
> things is that musicians from other backgrounds and languages might
> not get the idiom or nuance.
>
> "To communicate is our passion and our despair."
> --William Golding, Free Fall
>
>
> -Randolph Peters
>
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>

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

[Finale] OT: Takemitsu analysis

[Brennon Bortz]

Hello all,

Just wondering if anyone on the list has done any analysis of late  
Takemitsu works?  I"m currently rounding out my thesis--an analysis  
of Archipelago S.--and would love to be able to discuss my ideas with  
someone.  If any of you are interested, please let me know.


Best regards,

Brennon Bortz
Teaching Assistant and Graduate Student - Music Composition
University of California, Riverside
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



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

Re: [Finale] Hyphenating text underlay

[John Howell]

Couldn't get back on this right away--in the middle of final exams, 
grading papers, etc.


I would never accuse Mark of doing this deliberately, because I don't 
believe he would ever do so, but in the message below he carried what 
I actually said to a "reductio ad absurdam," setting up a sort of 
straw man, which I'm afraid others picked up on, assumed that was 
what I meant, and have been piling on accordingly.


OK, what do I (and what do we) mean by "stylization"?  That question 
can't be answered accurately without specifying the basic style in 
the first place, and assuming that the word means the same thing to 
different people is asking for misunderstanding.  Are we talking 
about traditional classical, contemporary classical, jazz (in any of 
a number of different flavors), middle of the road pop, country, 
gospel (in different flavors), folk (traditional or contemporary), 
easy rock, hard rock, heavy metal--fill in the rest of your own list. 
Sinatra stylizes, Reba stylizes, Vince Gill stylizes, Ella stylizes, 
but they all do it differently.  Just promise to identify where 
you're coming from, OK?


To answer Mark's last question first, I don't really have a 
"philosophy" for solo music, but I sure do for ensemble music because 
I've been arranging for different kinds of vocal ensembles (and their 
accompaniments) for 'round about 57 years now, I'm made my mistakes, 
I've (sometimes) learned from them enough not to make them any more, 
and I like to think that I know what I'm doing.  And to define the 
style, call it mainstream pop with flavorings of jazz, country, 
legit, and anything else that seems appropriate at the moment. 
Although I can and have composed "serious" choral music, it isn't 
really my thing.  Making ensembles work is.  For about 20 years I 
wrote for the male voices in my quartet, The Four Saints, with 
accompaniments that had to work for anything from piano trio to the 
"Tonight Show" Band or the Cincinnati Symphony.  For more years I 
wrote for women's voices when I directed The Belles of Indiana and 
their jazz-rock showband at I.U. in the '70s, and when I moved here I 
learned to write effectively for mixed voices and soloists with a 
12-piece showband in the '80s.  I've also composed and arranged for 
church choirs in the '90s, most recently in 2001.


If I DO have a philosophy for soloists, especially for students, it's 
pretty simple:  Don't just imitate the guy or gal on the CD you like 
so much.  Their stylization and ornamentation is what fits THEIR 
voices.  Find what works for you in YOUR voice!  The market for 
imitation Kenny Rogerses or Barbra Steisands is pretty much limited 
to Holiday Inn lounges, where the hours are lousy and the pay isn't 
that great.  It's really amazing how many simply can't understand 
what those words mean!


OK, so what kind of anal, unreasonable notation am I talking about 
when it comes to ensemble stylization?  How about really weird, 
arcane things like anticipations, which it's my responsibility to 
specify; delays or suspensions, likewise; fine tuning the melodic 
rhythm to match the word stresses when they are different on repeated 
phrases.  Indicating the places to breathe--or NOT to breathe.  In 
other words--or at least in the way I look at it--doing the things 
that a soloist would do (or not do) very naturally, but that an 
ensemble would not, at least not together.  That does not seem to me 
especially unreasonable.


Examples:  Notating anticipations to give a jazz-like feel--I could 
cite an arrangement of "Mountain Greenery" that my quartet recorded 
back in about '62.  Notating delays and suspensions--an arrangement 
for my 8-voice college "Studio Singers" of "It's A Lazy Afternoon" in 
which I specified and notated the laziness, in overlapping 
overtracks, very exactly, from the mid-'80s.  Improving word 
scansion--an arrangement of "Coming To America," which is very 
repetitive, to both improve and increase the power of the text 
setting, originally arranged for my college show group in the early 
'80s, revised for singers in a community chorus in the mid-'90s, in 
my thoughts right now as I add string parts to the arrangement for 
soloists, chorus and concert band.


Now in many cases I've been the director as well, and I've had to 
teach what I notated to my performers, and sometimes I've been right 
and it sounds exactly as I meant it to, and sometimes they just 
couldn't get the hang of it and I went with what they were more 
comfortable with.  And yes, those things got worked out in rehearsal, 
but with student performers it never came down to telling them, "OK, 
guys, you work it out."  It was part of my job to teach them how to 
realize styles.  In my professional quartet, it was always a matter 
of consensus, no matter what I specified.


Oh, and with my show groups, I often DID specify the attire, or at 
least whether a given song or medley needed to be costumed, or I 
would suggest ideas to my wardrobe 

Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Darcy James Argue]

I wlll never understand the anti-amplification fundamentalists. Like  
any other aesthetic endeavor, there is good amplification and bad  
amplification. Good amplification is rare, but good anything is rare.  
Good amplification can actually allow for a more intimate sound,  
bringing the instruments closer to the listener than would otherwise  
be possible. What amplification did for singers (the artistry of  
Billie Holliday or Frank Sinatra would be impossible without  
amplification), it can also do for instruments -- think of Miles  
Davis's harmon mute sound, which is vastly more expressive than a  
harmon mute played without amplification. It makes it possible to  
bring together fresh and distinctive instrumental combinations that  
would not be possible to balance acoustically. Amplification is what  
makes it possible to have a rewarding listening experience in spaces  
that were not designed with acoustics in mind -- for example, every  
jazz club ever.


And I don't have the even slightest trouble telling the difference  
between even a poorly mic'd acoustic piano and a digital piano. The  
differences are vast -- for starters, digital pianos can't (yet) come  
close to reproducing the effect of all those sympathetic strings for  
big chords, or passages with the sustain pedal is down -- let alone  
the nuances of half-pedaling, etc.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY



On 07 May 2007, at 6:59 PM, dhbailey wrote:


John Howell wrote:
[snip]> through speakers.  My conclusion, after listening VERY  
critically, was
that our Roland sounded just as good as the Steinway, when the  
Steinway was miked, even though it would never come close to the  
actual acoustic sound of the Steinway.



the problem in such situations is that the best amplification/ 
microphone combinations aren't always used.


A properly mic'd and amplified Steinway should sound like a  
Steinway, and be very different sounding from a Roland.


But that runs into microphones which cost over $1000 each, and most  
live amplification setups which groups like regional orchestras can  
afford don't use that sort of equipment, choosing to use a couple  
or three Shure SM57 mics.


--
David H. Bailey
[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] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[dhbailey]

John Howell wrote:
[snip]> through speakers.  My conclusion, after listening VERY 
critically, was
that our Roland sounded just as good as the Steinway, when the Steinway 
was miked, even though it would never come close to the actual acoustic 
sound of the Steinway.



the problem in such situations is that the best amplification/microphone 
combinations aren't always used.


A properly mic'd and amplified Steinway should sound like a Steinway, 
and be very different sounding from a Roland.


But that runs into microphones which cost over $1000 each, and most live 
amplification setups which groups like regional orchestras can afford 
don't use that sort of equipment, choosing to use a couple or three 
Shure SM57 mics.


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

Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[John Howell]

At 3:21 AM -0400 5/7/07, Raymond Horton wrote:
I don't see the fuss.  A guy is trying to prove he can replace 
_live_ musicians, but does so by posting  _recordings_, some of 
which are so badly reproduced they could never be mistaken for live 
players, even though the recordings were once made from live 
players.  His computerized recording sounds as good, or better, as 
some of the badly reproduced recordings.  This proves nothing as far 
as a computer replacing humans.  It proves that computer reproduced 
sound is inconsistent, no matter what the original source.


Put the computer producing the sounds in a blind test in the same 
room alternating with live musicians, _who are playing with no 
electronic amplification_.  That is the only test would mean 
anything.



Raymond Horton


Thank you, Raymond!!  My college ensemble carried a Roland digital 
piano on the road, and of course it was played through speakers.  The 
regional orchestra I played with had a live jazz trio (very good, 
too!) as guest artists, using a large concert grand piano, but also 
miked and played through speakers.  My conclusion, after listening 
VERY critically, was that our Roland sounded just as good as the 
Steinway, when the Steinway was miked, even though it would never 
come close to the actual acoustic sound of the Steinway.


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] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Raymond Horton]

No, that would miss the point.  The guy is trying to replace live 
musicians in a live performance space, unless I read incorrectly.  Do 
the test in a live performance space, not through speakers.   Live 
instruments are always at the mercy of poor reproduction.  



This is what I do for a living.  We play our best music in our smallest, 
best acoustic spaces, with no amplification, to our smallest crowds, and 
we play our worst music in our largest spaces, with bad amplification, 
to our largest crowds.  Such is the life of most orchestral musicians 
nowadays in this fine country.



RBH


dhbailey wrote:

Raymond Horton wrote:
I don't see the fuss.  A guy is trying to prove he can replace _live_ 
musicians, but does so by posting  _recordings_, some of which are so 
badly reproduced they could never be mistaken for live players, even 
though the recordings were once made from live players.  His 
computerized recording sounds as good, or better, as some of the 
badly reproduced recordings.  This proves nothing as far as a 
computer replacing humans.  It proves that computer reproduced sound 
is inconsistent, no matter what the original source.


Put the computer producing the sounds in a blind test in the same 
room alternating with live musicians, _who are playing with no 
electronic amplification_.  That is the only test would mean anything.





I'd go one step further, since live acoustic instruments influence the 
vibrations in the air vastly differently than loudspeakers do, and so 
I would have both the computer and the live musicians in separate 
rooms, amplified through the same set of loudspeakers in the room 
where the testing was being done, so that the listener would hear both 
sound sources through the same speakers.


And have professional sound engineers who have nothing at stake either 
way control the amplification.


To have a person who is trying to prove a point provide the sounds 
does nothing more than gives us all a clear example of why independent 
testing agencies are a good thing.




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

Re: [Finale] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[Randolph Peters]

I wrote:
I think it is more important in a score to try and convey the spirit 
and style to musicians rather than bogging them down in minutia that 
could ruin the outcome.


Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
 I must say it seems to me that in the set of skills which 
musicians are reasonably expected to acquire is the ability to read 
the information in a score, and take to account in their use of the 
score the expressions, articulations, dynamics, tempi, and other 
directions and indications in the score so that they are not 
"minutia"! [snip] ...I submit that any singer or instrumentalist who 
does not know how to interpret the "minutia" of a score has given up 
the right to call him- or herself a  musician, as part of being a 
musician is studying the score. 


You can't call it a  if you make a reasonable, well argued case!

I agree with you totally, but for a composer, there is a thing called 
diminishing returns. Every composer is going to have to figure it out 
for themselves where to draw the line. And for the record, I was 
thinking of notations that are much more picky than the standard 
expressions, dynamics, tempi, etc.


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

Re: [Finale] Finale teacher needed in Portland, OR

[Lon Price]

A music store in Portland, Oregon is looking for someone local to  
teach a class in Finale.  Anyone who is interested please contact  
Eric Warlaumont at Portland Music Company, 532 SE MLK Blvd.,  
Portland, OR.  The phone number is (503) 226- 3719 or (800) 452-2991.



Lon Price, Los Angeles
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



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

Re: [Finale] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[Randolph Peters]

I like how Donald Erb puts explanations in his scores. He doesn't 
make them too lengthy, but if the requests are unusual, he will often 
put an "!" at the end. Sometimes his comments are humorous. "You will 
sound like an insane monkey," and that kind of thing. It gives the 
musicians a laugh, but more importantly, it communicates the intent 
and spirit of the piece.


Other times he writes about dynamic balance in places where 
traditional expressions don't quite convey what is wanted. For 
example, he might ask one player to match the volume of someone else, 
or "alter" another's sound, while a different player is told to 
always stay in the background. That's not quite the same as giving 
two musicians a forte marking and the other a piano, or using 
Hauptstimme and Nebenstimme, especially when you want the music to 
rise and fall, ebb and flow. Or when you want to create unusual 
mixtures of timbre. Erb's acoustic orchestrations have a lot in 
common with the way you make combinations of sounds and control the 
attack, delay, sustain and release in electronic instruments.


With Erb's music, amongst many others, there is an exploration of 
instruments at their extremes. At the extremes you sometimes have to 
explain what the effort is like and what the result is. A flute, to 
use a simple example, played quickly at its low end is not very loud. 
Do you write "as loud as possible" or mp or what? There are two 
schools of thought when it comes to dynamics -- write the resultant 
dynamic or write the effort you want to go into it. A brief 
description can clear that up. Multiphonics are like that as well. 
Sometimes you have to blow your brains out just to get that quiet 
high partial to appear.


The drawback to using a lot of blurbs and text blocks to explain 
things is that musicians from other backgrounds and languages might 
not get the idiom or nuance.


"To communicate is our passion and our despair."
--William Golding, Free Fall


-Randolph Peters

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

Re: [Finale] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[Christopher Smith]

On 7-May-07, at 1:08 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:



On May 7, 2007, at 2:36 AM, Randolph Peters wrote:

The conductor of the new piece, who later became a friend in spite  
of my music, just laughed at me. I'll never forget how he pointed  
to one of my instructions and asked me what in the world I thought  
the conductor was for -- didn't I think he could do his job?




When Stravinsky put a "non crescendo" marking in _The Firebird_,  
the conductor turned to him and said, "Young man, if you don't want  
a crescendo then don't write anything."


Some things never change.



As my sister (who is in business) says, "Managers need something to  
manage. If you don't give them something to manage, then they will  
find something."


However, I know what S. is talking about. There are all kinds of  
moments where you expect something to be put in just by common  
practice, and just NOT writing anything might imply tacet permission  
to put it in. Explicitly saying "non-cresc." will head off that  
problem at the pass.


Sometimes you have to write for the player, too. A jazz bass player  
will start off playing pizz, while a classical player will  
automatically start off arco, and either one will laugh at you if you  
write "arco" or "pizz" in the wrong part, even though the indication  
is accurate.


Likewise jazz drummers sometimes need to be told "break" or "tacet"  
over a bar's rest, so that they don't play through it. We all know  
that the bar's rest means tacet, but they need a reminder. I think  
this comes from reading sketchy parts by people who don't really know  
how to write drum parts, including parts written by other drummers!


Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[Noel Stoutenburg]

Friends,

while Randolph Peters wrote:
I think it is more important in a score to try and convey the spirit 
and style to musicians rather than bogging them down in minutia that 
could ruin the outcome.



 I must say it seems to me that in the set of skills which 
musicians are reasonably expected to acquire is the ability to read the 
information in a score, and take to account in their use of the score 
the expressions, articulations, dynamics, tempi, and other directions 
and indications in the score so that they are not  "minutia"! And where 
does one draw the line between "spirit and style" and "minutia"? I 
suspect that what is a critical part of "spirit and style" for one 
musician is a bit of "minutia" for another. I have contemplated at times 
creating a three dimensional sculpture of a quaver, divided like a 
jigsaw puzzle into several parts, as a visual exposition of the multiple 
characteristics of the "correct" note: origin, pitch, duration, volume, 
timbre, stress, syllable, ornamentation, and termination. The fact is if 
any one of these characteristics is not right (except perhaps in 
instrumental music, where the syllable is usually of no consequence), 
the note is not right.


I sing in a rather good church choir which includes about a dozen paid 
singers, undergraduate and graduate music majors in vocal performance 
and professional musicians. I am frequently amazed at how many of these 
people with advanced musical training seem to think they have done a 
good job  reading the music if they approximate the pitch and the 
rhythm, ignoring just about every other bit of performance information 
in the score. I submit that any singer or instrumentalist who does not 
know how to interpret the "minutia" of a score has given up the right to 
call him- or herself a  musician, as part of being a musician is 
studying the score. 


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

Re: [Finale] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[Andrew Stiller]

On May 7, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Chuck Israels wrote:



On May 6, 2007, at 11:36 PM, Randolph Peters wrote:

 For example, I sometimes get asked if an accidental in one octave 
affects another octave. (Where are these otherwise fine musicians 
taught anyway?) I find it an especially strange question when the 
music is far from tonal.





I've had trouble with this one - fine musicians in the Metropole 
Orchestra assumed that an accidental in a lower octave carried over to 
a higher octave.  [...] So what is the rule, and does it change from 
place to place and culture to culture?  I have assumed, new octave = 
new situation.  Perhaps this is not right.




Prior to about 1870, the rule was that an accidental applies to all 
octaves within its measure. Since then the rule is that it applies only 
to the octave in which it was written. The problem is that the 
classical standard repertoire is dominated by pieces written to the old 
rule, and so may improperly carry it over to more recent work.


There are actually a great many conventional notations whose meaning 
changed in the period between, say, Mendelssohn and Bartòk, but most 
musicians don't realize this.


Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://www.kallistimusic.com/


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

Re: [Finale] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[Andrew Stiller]

On May 7, 2007, at 2:36 AM, Randolph Peters wrote:

The conductor of the new piece, who later became a friend in spite of 
my music, just laughed at me. I'll never forget how he pointed to one 
of my instructions and asked me what in the world I thought the 
conductor was for -- didn't I think he could do his job?




When Stravinsky put a "non crescendo" marking in _The Firebird_, the 
conductor turned to him and said, "Young man, if you don't want a 
crescendo then don't write anything."


Some things never change.

Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://www.kallistimusic.com/

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

Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Andrew Stiller]

On May 6, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Aaron Rabushka wrote:


Hmm--I wonder if Respighi's nightingale record caused the same furor.


For decades, even after the advent of musique concrète, this recording 
was regarded as a cheap gimmick, and was invariably cited as such by 
Respighi's detractors.


Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://www.kallistimusic.com/


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

Re: [Finale] Hyphenating text underlay

[Andrew Stiller]

On May 6, 2007, at 11:47 PM, Mark D Lew wrote:

  it's always possible to make your score even more precise.  You can 
give an exact metronome mark for every change of tempo, including 
every ritard.  You can litter the score with dynamic markings, at the 
top and bottom of every hairpin.  You can spell out every lyric 
phonetically in order to insist on the desired regional accent.  You 
could pursue this as far as you like, even well into the realm of the 
absurd, specifying the required size of the hall, attire of the 
performers, or whatnot.


All of these things--all of them--have been put into scores in the past 
fifty years, often by major composers. Check out any score by Crumb, 
e.g.


I do some of these things myself. For example, I feel that if the 
dynamic is not specified at the end of a hairpin, you're just asking 
for trouble.


Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://www.kallistimusic.com/

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

Re: [Finale] Hyphenating text underlay

[Andrew Stiller]

On May 6, 2007, at 8:12 PM, Linda Worsley wrote:

Maybe not, in American English, but writing "fi-re" encourages a 
really gross pronunciation with the ugly "YUR" emphasized at the end.




Ah, this is a very important point.  Colloquial pronunciation is 
NEVER incorrect


True.  And ugly isn't incorrect either.  But it IS ugly. 
"dee-sye--YUR"  ugh.  It will happen, and that's OK, but I don't like 
to promote it.


Would you have the same problem w. "higher" and "flyer," and if not, 
why not?


Also: one thing that has  gone astray in this thread is the scansion of 
the poetry being set. If "fi-re" is required for the line to scan, then 
the composer must either set the word to two syllables, or deliberately 
violate the scansion. The latter is, of course, done all the time for 
all kinds of musical reasons, but still it is an issue the composer has 
to bear in mind.


Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://www.kallistimusic.com/

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

Re: [Finale] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[Mark D Lew]

On May 7, 2007, at 4:29 AM, dhbailey wrote:

All that conductor had to do would be to have said "I'm sorry, how  
does this work for you?" and tried something a bit differently, and  
he would have had the orchestra eating out of his hand.


It amazes me when people haven't learned that lesson and it scares  
the hell out of me when such people get elected or appointed to  
government positions!


Unfortunately, "i'm sorry" is not a slogan that will get anyone  
elected in today's political environment.  Personally, I would settle  
for evidence that a politician is capable of learning from his  
mistakes, even if he isn't allowed to acknowledge them explicitly.


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

Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Phil Daley]

At 5/7/2007 10:29 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:

>But all that aside, why does anyone go a concert at all these days?

Good question.

I go to local performances where I personally know the musicians 
involved.  I used to be a music teacher and I know that the current 
directors appreciate it when local people show up for the concerts.


>For that  matter, why does anyone go to a hockey game?

Whoa, I would never go to a hockey game or an NBA game, for that 
matter.  Way too much money for something I wouldn't even watch on TV.


>You get better
>sightlines, great camera work, professional commentary, cheaper
>snacks and more comfortable seats watching it on TV for free in your
>own home.

Exactly, I love football, I watch 3 or 4 games a week during the season.
And, I get a much better view on TV than I could get in the stands.

I also love college basketball.  But it is too far to drive to see a 
preferred game.  I have to take what they put on TV.


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



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

Re: [Finale] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[Phil Daley]

At 5/7/2007 10:41 AM, Chuck Israels wrote:

>On May 6, 2007, at 11:36 PM, Randolph Peters wrote:
>
>>  For example, I sometimes get asked if an accidental in one octave
>> affects another octave. (Where are these otherwise fine musicians
>> taught anyway?) I find it an especially strange question when the
>> music is far from tonal.
>>
>>
>
>I've had trouble with this one - fine musicians in the Metropole
>Orchestra assumed that an accidental in a lower octave carried over
>to a higher octave.  I did not intend that, and the result was that I
>missed the error in the rehearsals and recorded the piece with the
>wrong pitch.  (Not doing my job as well as I should have been.)  So
>what is the rule, and does it change from place to place and culture
>to culture?  I have assumed, new octave = new situation.  Perhaps
>this is not right.

Since I only direct and play tonal music, I would assume this to be an 
editing error.


There are so many problems performing today's music because of editing 
errors, I have to spend  rehearsal time fixing people parts.


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



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

Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Christopher Smith]

On 7-May-07, at 6:41 AM, Phil Daley wrote:



I have been to live musicals where there was no pit band.  The  
music played there was far superior to this sample.  But, I suppose  
the music could have been recordings made from live musicians.   
There was a synthesizer guy present, and some of the sounds were  
obviously from him.


This was part of my point about the kind of argument that could be  
made for shows.


There was a big mega-musical produced here in French a few years ago;  
by all reports it was pretty spectacular. But the orchestra and  
chorus was entirely pre-recorded. Only the principals sang their  
parts live, and even then if one of them was not in voice that day,  
or wanted to save his/herself for a TV show or the second show that  
day, then their track was turned on and they lip-synched. I picketed  
that show, partly on a live-music argument, but mostly because it was  
fraudulent. There was NO mention of a recorded orchestra and chorus  
ANYWHERE in the publicity, nor in the program, yet full ticket prices  
were charged. The onstage chorus, mostly dancers, even lip-synched  
along with the recorded chorus.


Now, not many people demanded their money back, even once it became  
clear that they were watching a sort of karaoke show, because the  
lighting, sets, costumes, and choreography were mighty entertaining  
even without live musicians.


But can you imagine a symphony concert where it's a chamber-sized  
ensemble onstage with a laptop and speakers? First of all, the sound  
of music through speakers is nowhere near the quality of acoustic  
sound. There is no question of whether or not anyone could tell the  
difference between a LIVE orchestra in an acoustic space and a  
recording, no matter how high the sound quality. For a show, already  
amplified, that difference is smaller.


But all that aside, why does anyone go a concert at all these days?  
You could probably get a better performance from a CD of your  
favourite orchestra, in the comfort of your own living room. For that  
matter, why does anyone go to a hockey game? You get better  
sightlines, great camera work, professional commentary, cheaper  
snacks and more comfortable seats watching it on TV for free in your  
own home.


Once that question is answered, any talk about replacing orchestra  
musicians with laptops should subside into an embarrassed silence.


Christopher



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

Re: [Finale] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[Christopher Smith]

On 7-May-07, at 10:41 AM, Chuck Israels wrote:



On May 6, 2007, at 11:36 PM, Randolph Peters wrote:

 For example, I sometimes get asked if an accidental in one octave  
affects another octave. (Where are these otherwise fine musicians  
taught anyway?) I find it an especially strange question when the  
music is far from tonal.





I've had trouble with this one - fine musicians in the Metropole  
Orchestra assumed that an accidental in a lower octave carried over  
to a higher octave.  I did not intend that, and the result was that  
I missed the error in the rehearsals and recorded the piece with  
the wrong pitch.  (Not doing my job as well as I should have  
been.)  So what is the rule, and does it change from place to place  
and culture to culture?  I have assumed, new octave = new  
situation.  Perhaps this is not right.



I always learned that the accidental only applies to the measure and  
octave it originally appears in. However, I learned through the  
school of hard knocks that musicians don't always take that for  
granted (in these days of hurried copying and notation programs not  
always doing what they are told, and maybe there ARE cultural  
differences from region to region.) So I mark the courtesy  
accidental, so as to avoid any doubt.


But it would be in TONAL music where the question would be strange,  
as it should be obvious in conventional situations.


The other thing that always catches me (and other musicians) is when  
to perform repeats on a DS. In school I learned that the rule is NOT  
to repeat on DS, but that is an old carryover from rounded binary  
forms, and hardly anyone observes it in modern works. Now I mark DS  
(with repeat) or DS (no repeat) and mark it again at the sign "no  
repeat on DS" or "play twice on DS" (there is no way to mark legibly  
"repeat is good" or "do the repeat", and "play 2x" might mean play  
second time, so "play twice" is beyond misunderstanding.)


Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[Chuck Israels]

On May 6, 2007, at 11:36 PM, Randolph Peters wrote:

 For example, I sometimes get asked if an accidental in one octave  
affects another octave. (Where are these otherwise fine musicians  
taught anyway?) I find it an especially strange question when the  
music is far from tonal.





I've had trouble with this one - fine musicians in the Metropole  
Orchestra assumed that an accidental in a lower octave carried over  
to a higher octave.  I did not intend that, and the result was that I  
missed the error in the rehearsals and recorded the piece with the  
wrong pitch.  (Not doing my job as well as I should have been.)  So  
what is the rule, and does it change from place to place and culture  
to culture?  I have assumed, new octave = new situation.  Perhaps  
this is not right.


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] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[Phil Daley]

At 5/7/2007 07:29 AM, dhbailey wrote:

>Survival and success in so many aspects of life lies in knowing when to
>simply say "I'm sorry" even if you don't feel it.
>
>All that conductor had to do would be to have said "I'm sorry, how does
>this work for you?" and tried something a bit differently, and he would
>have had the orchestra eating out of his hand.
>
>It amazes me when people haven't learned that lesson and it scares the
>hell out of me when such people get elected or appointed to government
>positions!

No. You can't mean that politicians should admit a mistake.

I wouldn't expect it of Bush, but even Hillary won't admit she made a mistake.

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



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

Re: [Finale] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[dhbailey]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
In a message dated 07/05/2007 11:29:02 GMT Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


those who simply try to have a pissing contest with an unknown  composer 
(or a conductor they want to ridicule), to show them who is  the 
alpha-dog in the group and try to make the composer look like a  bumbling 
fool. 


Of course we all know that often the opposite applies and it's a  conductor 
trying to show who's boss -
 
I did a freelance gig with a conductor whose beat was not the clearest  I 
have ever seen.  Apart from about six of us, the orchestra were all  members of a 
local full time professional orchestra working as  freelances on their day 
off.
 
Eventually, the timpanist very politely said that from where he was sitting  
he couldn't see the beat at one particular point in the piece and asked if the 
 conductor could do anything to help.  Instead of trying to remedy the  
problem, this conductor looked at the timpanist (who was from the full time  
orchestra) as though he were an idiot and said, "Well everyone else can see it".  
The drummer's response was rather less polite than his initial comment.
 
At that moment, the conductor lost his orchestra - the atmosphere changed  
dramatically and it was open season as first one, then another,  then just about 
everybody shot him to pieces.
 


Survival and success in so many aspects of life lies in knowing when to 
simply say "I'm sorry" even if you don't feel it.


All that conductor had to do would be to have said "I'm sorry, how does 
this work for you?" and tried something a bit differently, and he would 
have had the orchestra eating out of his hand.


It amazes me when people haven't learned that lesson and it scares the 
hell out of me when such people get elected or appointed to government 
positions!



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

Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Phil Daley]

At 5/7/2007 06:02 AM, dhbailey wrote:

>But it's important to note that many of the people who got it right
>first time work with samples all the time -- the bigger question would
>be "If these recordings were played to the general public, would any of
>them guess that it wasn't live musicians playing?  Would the average
>concert-goer, even, pick up on the reverberation issues or the
>non-matching vibrato issues?

I have regular 4" computer speakers, ie. not very good at reproducing music.
I have never worked with samples.

Sample 1:  Sounds good, seems real to me.
Sample 2:  It started out with something different, and I thought, maybe 
this is the one, but by halfway through, it was sounding normal.

Sample 3:  This is bad music.  I'll bet this is the one.
Sample 4:  Yep, this sounds normal.

I rarely listen to _any_ recorded music.  To me, it seemed simple that #3 
was bad.


I have been to live musicals where there was no pit band.  The music played 
there was far superior to this sample.  But, I suppose the music could have 
been recordings made from live musicians.  There was a synthesizer guy 
present, and some of the sounds were obviously from him.


(Theatre by the Sea, Portsmouth, NH)

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



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

Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Phil Daley]

At 02:12 PM 5/6/2007, John Howell wrote:

>>Woodwind groupings also are strange in that the vibratos don't match
>>each other. It is more than just being in tune with each other, live
>>musicians also phrase, breathe and vibrate in ways that mesh with
>>each other. You can have the world's biggest sample library and
>>still not achieve that kind of collaboration.
>
>Absolutely!  Especially the phrasing and breathing.  I'm not as sold
>on the vibratos, since I've never been aware of orchestral woodwinds
>attempting to match vibratos.  You have, after all, the clarinets in
>there, traditionally playing with straight tone.  But you're
>absolutely right about their striving to think together.  Even
>gigging orchestras can come close, but play with the same 8 people
>for 10 years and it can be quite beautiful.

Ok, I had to go try it out.

I got it right away.

I think the note beginnings (articulations) sounded fake.  But, I also 
agree that the vibrato didn't sound right either.


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

Re: [Finale] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[YATESLAWRENCE]

 
 
In a message dated 07/05/2007 11:29:02 GMT Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

>those who simply try to have a pissing contest with an unknown  composer 
>(or a conductor they want to ridicule), to show them who is  the 
>alpha-dog in the group and try to make the composer look like a  bumbling 
>fool. 

Of course we all know that often the opposite applies and it's a  conductor 
trying to show who's boss -
 
I did a freelance gig with a conductor whose beat was not the clearest  I 
have ever seen.  Apart from about six of us, the orchestra were all  members of 
a 
local full time professional orchestra working as  freelances on their day 
off.
 
Eventually, the timpanist very politely said that from where he was sitting  
he couldn't see the beat at one particular point in the piece and asked if the 
 conductor could do anything to help.  Instead of trying to remedy the  
problem, this conductor looked at the timpanist (who was from the full time  
orchestra) as though he were an idiot and said, "Well everyone else can see 
it".  
The drummer's response was rather less polite than his initial comment.
 
At that moment, the conductor lost his orchestra - the atmosphere changed  
dramatically and it was open season as first one, then another,  then just 
about 
everybody shot him to pieces.
 
All the best,
 
Lawrence
 

lawrenceyates.co.uk



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

Re: [Finale] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[dhbailey]

Randolph Peters wrote:
[snip]>
Then again, Mahler was a conductor and he wrote paragraphs of 
instructions in his scores.



[snip]

This just proves that there's nobody like a conductor to know the 
liberties that conductors take with scores (Mahler, perhaps as much as 
anybody).  The composer side of him knew that the conductor side of him 
was a scurrilous rat who would warp the music to his personal 
aggrandizement as a conductor, and the composer side of him wasn't about 
to allow other conductors to take the same freedoms with his music that 
he took with the music of others.  :-)



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

Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[dhbailey]

Raymond Horton wrote:
I don't see the fuss.  A guy is trying to prove he can replace _live_ 
musicians, but does so by posting  _recordings_, some of which are so 
badly reproduced they could never be mistaken for live players, even 
though the recordings were once made from live players.  His 
computerized recording sounds as good, or better, as some of the badly 
reproduced recordings.  This proves nothing as far as a computer 
replacing humans.  It proves that computer reproduced sound is 
inconsistent, no matter what the original source.


Put the computer producing the sounds in a blind test in the same room 
alternating with live musicians, _who are playing with no electronic 
amplification_.  That is the only test would mean anything.





I'd go one step further, since live acoustic instruments influence the 
vibrations in the air vastly differently than loudspeakers do, and so I 
would have both the computer and the live musicians in separate rooms, 
amplified through the same set of loudspeakers in the room where the 
testing was being done, so that the listener would hear both sound 
sources through the same speakers.


And have professional sound engineers who have nothing at stake either 
way control the amplification.


To have a person who is trying to prove a point provide the sounds does 
nothing more than gives us all a clear example of why independent 
testing agencies are a good thing.


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

Re: [Finale] Hyphenating text underlay

[dhbailey]

Christopher Smith wrote:


On May 6, 2007, at 11:47 PM, Mark D Lew wrote:
You can litter the score with dynamic markings, at the top and bottom 
of every hairpin.


Hmm, I've been doing that lately, partially to keep one of the trumpet 
players in my brass quintet from eating up rehearsal time by asking 
"What's the ending dynamic?" on every hairpin that doesn't have one...




There are other trumpet players in the world -- you should only have to 
say "use your artistic judgement" once and he/she should never ask 
again.  If the question comes up a second time, say you'll be looking 
for a new trumpet player in the morning.


The literature from all the way back to the first uses of the hairpins 
is full of examples where the great composers don't have ending dynamic 
markings for the hairpins.  If the trumpet player needs to be told what 
it should be, that trumpet player is in the wrong field.



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

Re: [Finale] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[dhbailey]

Raymond Horton wrote:




...
I have to agree with Mark: figure out for yourself where the 
diminishing returns begin and go with that. Besides, I still get 
flummoxed by questions I never anticipate. For example, I sometimes 
get asked if an accidental in one octave affects another octave. 
(Where are these otherwise fine musicians taught anyway?) I find it an 
especially strange question when the music is far from tonal.

...
-Randolph Peters


But, like it or not, there are composers, editors and performers out 
there who try to abide by the 19th century rule on this.  Yes, they are 
wrong, but to avoid wrong notes in performances  of _your_ music, the 
best thing is for you to put in the accidentals in the other octaves.  
It's not so hard, and it increases readability for musicians who may be 
spending the rest of the week playing music written under the old rules.



(Just some advice from a performer in an orchestra that has played a ton 
of new music written under all the different rules.)




In teaching my son to drive, the one point I kept pounding home with him 
was "You always have to think, what's the stupidest thing some other 
driver or pedestrian could do at any moment while you're driving, and be 
prepared for that to happen."


As a composer, the same thing applies -- "What's the dumbest question 
some musician could ask about my music?" and try your hardest to have it 
answered before it gets asked.


Those questions come from two sources -- those who are genuinely 
confused (rare as the level of the ensemble gets higher and higher) and 
those who simply try to have a pissing contest with an unknown composer 
(or a conductor they want to ridicule), to show them who is the 
alpha-dog in the group and try to make the composer look like a bumbling 
fool.  These sorts of people are common at all levels of music-making, 
unfortunately.


I was in a rehearsal last week (amateur community band) and we were 
working on a commercially available publication of  a medley of big band 
tunes (for concert band) and we got to a particular section and my 
drummer took off with the tempo.  I stopped the band and said he was 
rushing.  His reply, which should have been "I'm sorry" was instead 
"Don't you want to take it that fast?" as if I were a fool for wanting 
to do it at any slower tempo.  I simply said, "No, that's why I was 
conducting it at a slower tempo."  And we redid it at my tempo, but I 
couldn't believe he would have said that, as if he obviously knew the 
right tempo and I, the conductor, obviously was only there as a 
showpiece who should have followed his tempo.


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

Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[dhbailey]

Kim Patrick Clow wrote:

I got it the first time. Not sure why but I didn't have any trouble
making a choice.
Very cool post though,thanks for sharing this.



It's very interesting reading the reactions on this list, and how some 
have guessed correctly the first time, others needed a second or third 
listening and still others didn't guess right at all.


But it's important to note that many of the people who got it right 
first time work with samples all the time -- the bigger question would 
be "If these recordings were played to the general public, would any of 
them guess that it wasn't live musicians playing?  Would the average 
concert-goer, even, pick up on the reverberation issues or the 
non-matching vibrato issues?


It will be very interesting to see where that whole project finally leads.

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

Re: [Finale] Hyphenating text underlay

[Mark D Lew]

On May 6, 2007, at 11:15 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:

But sometimes, you want the players to work it out for themselves.  
It's like, "C'mon, you guys -- you're all good musicians. I  
shouldn't have to hold your hand every step of the way. Use your  
ears and use your judgement. If there's a disagreement, you are  
perfectly capable of working it out amongst yourselves."


I would say that no matter what the circumstances you will always  
reach that point eventually.  There may well be great variation  
depending on the situation -- for good musicians you may be  
comfortable specifying very little, and for dense or unimaginative  
ones you may feel a need to specify a heck of a lot.  But even in the  
worst case you still can't specify *everything*.


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

Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Darcy James Argue]

I doubt they played the low-fi files for the Juilliard and Berklee  
profs. I think they probably just compressed the hell out of the  
online versions to save on bandwidth, but I would assume they would  
have used CD-quality audio when they administered the test in person.  
Otherwise, it would be the first thing they would have complained  
about, since it offers a convenient excuse for them not having  
spotted the fake on the first round.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY




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

Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?

[Raymond Horton]

I don't see the fuss.  A guy is trying to prove he can replace _live_ 
musicians, but does so by posting  _recordings_, some of which are so 
badly reproduced they could never be mistaken for live players, even 
though the recordings were once made from live players.  His 
computerized recording sounds as good, or better, as some of the badly 
reproduced recordings.  This proves nothing as far as a computer 
replacing humans.  It proves that computer reproduced sound is 
inconsistent, no matter what the original source. 



Put the computer producing the sounds in a blind test in the same room 
alternating with live musicians, _who are playing with no electronic 
amplification_.  That is the only test would mean anything.



Raymond Horton


Christopher Smith wrote:


On 6-May-07, at 6:51 PM, shirling & neueweise wrote:



the differences would be even more evident at a higher resolution, 
the aliasing significantly alters much of the real sound: winds 
suffer almost as bad as percussion instruments.  the thinness of the 
wind sound at 15-18" (ex. 1) is typical of lower quality compressed 
audio, and at these resolutions the poor quality of the sound gives 
the "fake" an unfair advantage.  the omnipresence of mp3s and 
compressed audio playback units would actually benefit the 
development of "machine" performances, once the reference of the live 
orchestra played on decent-quality recordings on passable systems 
disappears (on an individual basis i mean).




Good point. I didn't say that the sound quality of the examples was 
not high, but that was certainly a factor in what affected my 
perception. I admit, I was almost fooled by the steely clarinet in 
example 2, but that was just the player with a bright sound, and you 
could hear the flanging from the compression in his sound, which would 
have been a giveaway of a sample.



("crap sound" should be spoken with a glaswegian accent by the way, i 
think it has more impact: "e's go'a crrap sound")


I hear you! I wonder if we are thinking of the same sound engineer...

Christopher



___
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] OT: too much notating; was: Hyphenating text underlay

[Raymond Horton]

...
I have to agree with Mark: figure out for yourself where the 
diminishing returns begin and go with that. Besides, I still get 
flummoxed by questions I never anticipate. For example, I sometimes 
get asked if an accidental in one octave affects another octave. 
(Where are these otherwise fine musicians taught anyway?) I find it an 
especially strange question when the music is far from tonal.

...
-Randolph Peters


But, like it or not, there are composers, editors and performers out 
there who try to abide by the 19th century rule on this.  Yes, they are 
wrong, but to avoid wrong notes in performances  of _your_ music, the 
best thing is for you to put in the accidentals in the other octaves.  
It's not so hard, and it increases readability for musicians who may be 
spending the rest of the week playing music written under the old rules.



(Just some advice from a performer in an orchestra that has played a ton 
of new music written under all the different rules.)



Raymond Horton
Bass Trombonist,
Louisville Orchestra
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale