RE: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT

[David W. Fenton]

On 27 Mar 2008 at 13:19, John Howell wrote:

> The problem (not a problem for them, but a 
> problem for us in learning to interpret late 13th 
> century Franconian notation) is that Franco used 
> the same note shape to indicate both a perfect 
> longa (worth 3 breves) and an imperfect longa 
> (worth only 2 breves), while a single breve could 
> have its normal value of 1 breve or could be 
> altered to represent the value of 2 
> breves--EXACTLY the same value of an imperfect 
> longa!  Everything depended on context, but we 
> can actually learn to read--even sightread--good 
> clear Franconian notation based on Franco's own 
> rules of interpretation.  After all, THEY did!

I believe the description above applies to *Garlandian* notation, not 
Franconian. After all, Franco of Cologne's whole innovation was the 
introduction of symbols that had absolute meaning, regardless of 
context (though not all the symbols still in use were free of 
contextual meanings).


-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/


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

Re: [Finale] Sturgeoun's Law (was Partial tuplets in Finale)

[David W. Fenton]

On 27 Mar 2008 at 12:53, Chuck Israels wrote:

> This was an unusual period  
> of sophisticated "common practice" in the world of American popular  
> music and jazz, and I believe that there was a considerably higher  
> percentage of good quality, durable music than Sturgeon's Law would  
> predict.  Of course, only time will tell.  A personal opinion but, I  
> believe,  an educated one.

I wonder the completeness of your 100% sample. I know an awful lot of 
complete dreck from the period, and it occurs to me that if you're 
only looking at Gershwin and Berlin and so forth that you're really 
not seeing the whole picture.


-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/


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

Re: [Finale] Sturgeoun's Law (was Partial tuplets in Finale)

[timothy.key.price]

Am certain that your music probably is as good, as great, or even  
better than 95% of popular "serious" music. The only reason that it  
may not last is because you have not had the
good fortune, or the means, to have it published, to have it  
performed countless times, and played hundreds of times by orchestras  
which have perfected each and every nuance of the
piece, over and over again, until  . Eureka!  People can hum  
along, and then they realize "Hey, this is pretty good".

That is probably the only real difference, IMO.


On the other hand,  we seem to have enough music.  I get the feeling  
that there is nothing so useless as another composer.
So, we do it cause we have to, cause we need to, cause we love it.   
Sometimes we have a few people who love it too.


Have you tried writing music for video?  That makes a good math for  
repeated hearings and familiarity.

Music is effective in video too.


Best to you, Hiro, and keep writing.



tim


On Mar 27, 2008, at 2:18 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:



I believe my compositions are much better than most of whatever I hear
commercially, yet I have this strong feeling my compositions will die
when I die :-(

--

- Hiro

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



___
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] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT

[John Howell]

At 10:32 AM -0400 3/27/08, David W. Fenton wrote:

On 27 Mar 2008 at 6:21, dhbailey wrote:
 >

 I knew immediately what John meant when he said "cut time in 3" as would
 many of the musicians I work with.


I knew what he meant, too, but it's not a concept that those of us
who perform music notated in that meter ALL THE TIME actually use. At
least not in my experience at Oberlin and NYU (and that may be the
key -- *my* experience).


I may have made the term up (although I don't claim to have done so), 
but if I did it was because it makes sense to my students given the 
music they're used to seeing.


John


--
John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music
Virginia Tech Department of Music
College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences
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] Sturgeoun's Law (was Partial tuplets in Finale)

[John Howell]

At 7:29 AM -0700 3/27/08, Chuck Israels wrote:


Not to make too strong a case or say that the law was completely 
suspended, but it does seem to me that, in reference to American 
popular music of (approximately) the first half of the 20th Century, 
Sturgeon's percentages need adjustment.


Up or down?

I don't think any of us has a clue about what got rejected by the A&R 
guys, or ended up as an unplayed B side or album filler, and by its 
nature any general "law" has to be applied to the entire universe in 
question, not just to the ones that made it to the "Hit Parade" or 
"American Bandstand" or the "Top 40."


But I did once see a recording go into distribution with a song 
named--and I am NOT making this up!--"Take Back Your Heart, I Ordered 
Liver."


(I was a member of The Four Saints through the '60s.  Our records 
weren't released, they escaped!)


John


--
John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music
Virginia Tech Department of Music
College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences
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] (was Partial tuplets in Finale)

[John Howell]

At 6:28 AM -0400 3/27/08, dhbailey wrote:


Most music appreciation classes leave the class members with the 
impression that the historical music history periods all produced 
only masterworks by superior composers and fail to address the fact 
that much of what was written during those periods is no different 
from much which is written during our own lifetimes -- Crap.


I think that every course, middle school, high school or college 
level, should be required to begin with the statement of Sturgeon's 
Law.  And that it should be asked time and again on exams so that 
people have a more realistic image of any historical time period, 
whether music, literature, dance, or the plastic arts (painting, 
sculpture, architecture).


I don't teach Music Apprec, but I do teach a 2-semester Survey of 
Music course for music minors and general students.  My disclaimer is 
nowhere near that blatant.  I emphasize that we'll be dealing with 
the music of the composers recognized as the most important, for a 
variety of reasons, but that during their lifetimes there were 
thousands of other musicians holding down good jobs and writing music 
that fit their needs at the time.


I think I would begin such a class with the statement "90% of 
anything is crap.  That includes the Baroque Era of music history, 
which we will be studying in this class.  You're lucky in that we 
will be studying the 10% of Baroque music which isn't crap, but I 
want you all to remember that while these composers we will be 
studying were creating these masterworks, there were many more 
composers turning out efficient but hardly worthwhile music that we 
won't be studying."


While I may have brought up Sturgeon's law in the first place (or 
perhaps that was a different discussion on a different mailing list), 
it is at best a generalization, so we have to remember this:  "No 
generalization is ever true, including this one!"


My caution has to do with the definition of "crap."  Since I've just 
been researching baroque chamber music in our library, I would apply 
the following modification to S's Law in regard to baroque chamber 
music:  20% or so is outstanding (and that includes 100% of 
Telemann!); 60% or so is competent and enjoyable; 20% is inferior. 
That bell-curve distribution seems to me more realistic than S's Law. 
It might be applicable to the music of other periods, in other styles 
as well; I'm not prepared to argue that one way or the other.


John


--
John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music
Virginia Tech Department of Music
College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences
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] Sturgeoun's Law (was Partial tuplets in Finale)

[dhbailey]

A-NO-NE Music wrote:

I believe my compositions are much better than most of whatever I hear
commercially, yet I have this strong feeling my compositions will die
when I die :-(



 I would hope you would feel that way about your own creations (that 
they're better than others', not that they'll die with you).


And don't give up hope that at least some may survive you -- you're 
still a young person and I would hope you have many many more years of 
sharing your music with others and hopefully getting some of them 
spreading your music way beyond your immediate circle of influence.


But I never think about that with my own creations -- I make them to 
fill an immediate programming need or at the request of someone, and if 
they serve that purpose well I'm happy.  If any survive me, it will be 
nice but I'm getting my reward now when they succeed.


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

Re: [Finale] (was Partial tuplets in Finale)

[Lora Crighton]

--- dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> > I'd leave the assessment of "good" and "bad" to
> the students and 
> > instead try to teach something that's
> representative of what happened 
> > musically during the historical period in
> question.
> > 
> 
> 
> I agree -- but it's hard to find a textbook to teach
> with which has a 
> listening collection which would fit such a
> fair-representation delivery.
> 

The best classes I ever had didn't have a text with a
listening collection: the teachers put lists of music,
including multiple performances of some pieces, on
reserve at the library and brought in stacks of CDs &
scores to class.  

When we had a book+CD set in second year, many of the
students memorized specific performances, and several
of us noticed that we just needed to recognize the
distinctive sound of 3 different pianos rather than
actually learning the whole pieces for a listening
test. (Overworked students will usually take advantage
of any shortcuts!)

-- 
Io la Musica son, ch'ai dolci accenti
So far tranquillo ogni turbato core,
Et or di nobil ira et or d'amore
Poss'infiammar le più gelate menti.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Sturgeoun's Law (was Partial tuplets in Finale)

[Chuck Israels]

On Mar 27, 2008, at 12:03 PM, dhbailey wrote:


Chuck Israels wrote:

On Mar 27, 2008, at 3:28 AM, dhbailey wrote:


Most music appreciation classes leave the class members with the  
impression that the historical music history periods all produced  
only masterworks by superior composers and fail to address the  
fact that much of what was written during those periods is no  
different from much which is written during our own lifetimes --  
Crap.


I think that every course, middle school, high school or college  
level, should be required to begin with the statement of  
Sturgeon's Law.  And that it should be asked time and again on  
exams so that people have a more realistic image of any historical  
time period, whether music, literature, dance, or the plastic arts  
(painting, sculpture, architecture).


I think I would begin such a class with the statement "90% of  
anything is crap.  That includes the Baroque Era of music history,  
which we will be studying in this class.  You're lucky in that we  
will be studying the 10% of Baroque music which isn't crap, but I  
want you all to remember that while these composers we will be  
studying were creating these masterworks, there were many more  
composers turning out efficient but hardly worthwhile music that  
we won't be studying."



Not to make too strong a case or say that the law was completely  
suspended, but it does seem to me that, in reference to American  
popular music of (approximately) the first half of the 20th  
Century, Sturgeon's percentages need adjustment.


Are you saying that there was a much higher percentage of good stuff  
relative to crap,


David,

Yes, that's what I meant to communicate.  This was an unusual period  
of sophisticated "common practice" in the world of American popular  
music and jazz, and I believe that there was a considerably higher  
percentage of good quality, durable music than Sturgeon's Law would  
predict.  Of course, only time will tell.  A personal opinion but, I  
believe,  an educated one.


Chuck




or that 90% crap is rating things too conservatively and that really  
a higher percentage than a "mere" 90% was crap, leaving something  
like 1% or less of good stuff?



--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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] Sturgeoun's Law (was Partial tuplets in Finale)

[Dick Hauser]

On Mar 27, 2008, at 12:18 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:

I believe my compositions are much better than most of whatever I hear
commercially, yet I have this strong feeling my compositions will die
when I die :-(


Yes, it's so hard to find a good patron these days!

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

Re: [Finale] Sturgeoun's Law (was Partial tuplets in Finale)

[A-NO-NE Music]

I believe my compositions are much better than most of whatever I hear
commercially, yet I have this strong feeling my compositions will die
when I die :-(

-- 

- Hiro

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



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

Re: [Finale] Sturgeoun's Law (was Partial tuplets in Finale)

[dhbailey]

Chuck Israels wrote:


On Mar 27, 2008, at 3:28 AM, dhbailey wrote:



Most music appreciation classes leave the class members with the 
impression that the historical music history periods all produced only 
masterworks by superior composers and fail to address the fact that 
much of what was written during those periods is no different from 
much which is written during our own lifetimes -- Crap.


I think that every course, middle school, high school or college 
level, should be required to begin with the statement of Sturgeon's 
Law.  And that it should be asked time and again on exams so that 
people have a more realistic image of any historical time period, 
whether music, literature, dance, or the plastic arts (painting, 
sculpture, architecture).


I think I would begin such a class with the statement "90% of anything 
is crap.  That includes the Baroque Era of music history, which we 
will be studying in this class.  You're lucky in that we will be 
studying the 10% of Baroque music which isn't crap, but I want you all 
to remember that while these composers we will be studying were 
creating these masterworks, there were many more composers turning out 
efficient but hardly worthwhile music that we won't be studying."





Not to make too strong a case or say that the law was completely 
suspended, but it does seem to me that, in reference to American popular 
music of (approximately) the first half of the 20th Century, Sturgeon's 
percentages need adjustment.




Are you saying that there was a much higher percentage of good stuff 
relative to crap, or that 90% crap is rating things too conservatively 
and that really a higher percentage than a "mere" 90% was crap, leaving 
something like 1% or less of good stuff?



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

Re: [Finale] (was Partial tuplets in Finale)

[dhbailey]

David W. Fenton wrote:

On 27 Mar 2008 at 6:28, dhbailey wrote:

I think I would begin such a class with the statement "90% of anything 
is crap.  That includes the Baroque Era of music history, which we will 
be studying in this class.  You're lucky in that we will be studying the 
10% of Baroque music which isn't crap, but I want you all to remember 
that while these composers we will be studying were creating these 
masterworks, there were many more composers turning out efficient but 
hardly worthwhile music that we won't be studying."


While I heartily endorse Sturgeon's Law, and teaching it to students, 
I think the above approach to teaching music history is badly 
mistaken. History includes the good and the bad, and what we consider 
"good" today is only clear in comparison to what we consider "bad" 
(which quite often differs wildly from the opinions of the time). 
Teaching nothing but "masterworks" is what got music history into 
such a bind in the first place, and the approach you outline just 
makes it that much worse.


I'd leave the assessment of "good" and "bad" to the students and 
instead try to teach something that's representative of what happened 
musically during the historical period in question.





I agree -- but it's hard to find a textbook to teach with which has a 
listening collection which would fit such a fair-representation delivery.


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

RE: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT

[John Howell]

At 8:18 AM +0100 3/27/08, dc wrote:

John Howell écrit:
Not in the Malipiero edition, if my memory is 
anywhere close to accurate.  But 3/2 is fairly 
common in later Baroque music where it's an 
actual time signature and not a proportion.


You often mention this shift from proportions to 
time signatures. When did it take place 
according to you?


Well, it has nothing to do with "according to 
me," but if pressed I would have to say during 
the course of the 17th century.  Giovani Gabrieli 
and Claudio Monteverdi were still using 
proportion signs at the beginning of the century. 
Archangelo Corelli was using time signatures at 
the end (although they can't always be 
interpreted exactly as we would expect to 
interpret them).  But I wouldn't be terribly 
surprised to find examples of Bach or his 
contemporaries using the old fashioned 
proportions on rare occasions.


But to understand this gradual changeover (which 
is paralleled by changes in the use of barlines, 
the use of key signatures and accidentals, and a 
number of other notational changes that took 
place during the 17th century), it helps to know 
what the older system was and why it was needed.


And actually it wasn't needed until our notation 
system had evolved from triple subdivisions only 
(mid-13th century, under the influence of the 
Parisian rhythmic modes) to both triple and duple 
subdivisions (as advocated in "Ars nova" by 
Philippe de Vitry in around 1320).  The 
mensuration signs (an unbroken circle indicating 
perfect tempus, a broken circle--still in use as 
our sign for "common time"--indicating imperfect 
tempus--duple subdivision--and the slash of 
diminution that cut the time values of either one 
in half--still in use as our sign for "cut time") 
were absolute through the 16th and early 17th 
century, relating only to the tactus (as far as 
we can tell).  The proportion signs, on the other 
hand, always showed the relation between the new 
tempo and the previous tempo.  Another 
mensuration sign would cancel the proportion and 
again relate to the tactus.


(I'm deliberately ignoring Prolation, which 
determined the duple or triple subdivision of the 
next faster kind of notes.  But in practice, of 
course, it can't be ignored.)


The problem (not a problem for them, but a 
problem for us in learning to interpret late 13th 
century Franconian notation) is that Franco used 
the same note shape to indicate both a perfect 
longa (worth 3 breves) and an imperfect longa 
(worth only 2 breves), while a single breve could 
have its normal value of 1 breve or could be 
altered to represent the value of 2 
breves--EXACTLY the same value of an imperfect 
longa!  Everything depended on context, but we 
can actually learn to read--even sightread--good 
clear Franconian notation based on Franco's own 
rules of interpretation.  After all, THEY did!


Sorry; more information than you asked for.  But 
it's helpful to understand how we got to where we 
are today, and to do that we have to understand 
how things developed.  My Early Music Literature 
class is now in the middle of transcribing a 15th 
century chanson from the original notation, which 
is a pretty daunting task for a modern musician, 
but they're doing great and learning an awful lot 
by doing it.  First the notes and rests; then the 
musica ficta; and finally dealing with text 
underlay.


John


--
John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music
Virginia Tech Department of Music
College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences
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

[Finale] O.T. Recordings made in 1860 surface (20 years before Edison invented the process)

[Kim Patrick Clow]

Hi all:

This was a very interesting article I thought, so I'm passing this
along to the list.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/arts/27soun.html?ex=1207281600&en=5657a5508af06d36&ei=5070&emc=eta1



I don't believe it requires a site log-in.

Thanks,

Kim Patrick Clow
"Early Music enthusiasts think outside the Bachs!"
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Copying staff names between files

[Christopher Smith]

On 25-Mar-08, at 5:00 PM, dc wrote:


Hi folks,

Is there any way (native, or plug-in) to copy the staff names (with  
all their font and spacing attributes) from one file to another?


Thanks,

Dennis


Ever get a sense of déjà vu?

Christopher

Ever get a sense of déjà vu?

Christopher

8-)

Lots of weirdness with the timing of messages recently; things  
showing up hours or days later, etc.




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

Re: [Finale] Strange Music Spacing problem - help!

[Johannes Gebauer]

Here is more: I just realized that Finale spaces the music as though the 
notes were not beamed. That will require more space fore up-stems for 
the flags than for down-stems. Again, this does not happen in Layer 1, 
and only if notes would have there stems up, ie no other notes in other 
layers. Very strange indeed.


I realize I will find ways around it, but this is a real drag. It 
definitely did not happen in 2k5, as this file originated there and was 
spaced correctly before. However, it now happens for me in any file.


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

[Finale] Strange Music Spacing problem - help!

[Johannes Gebauer]

I don't think I have ever had a Finale problem as weird as this before.

For some reason layers 2-4 doesn't space correctly anymore. I have a 
simple 16th scale. Notes below c above middle c (c'') space wider than 
c'' and above. But only in layers 2-4. And, very strangely, although I 
had never noticed this before, it happens in every document I try.


This is in 2k7b Mac. I need a solution quickly...

(I have checked the layer options, the music spacing options, where else 
can I look?)


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] FinWin 2k6c - HP mysteroiusly mutes a section of a score

[Christopher Smith]

On 27-Mar-08, at 8:38 AM, themark wrote:

My case: choral SATB 4 staves score, each staff on separate MIDI  
channel, standard Human Playback active.
In a mezzoforte section for all staves, without any reason two bars  
of the Alto staff play at volume near to 0 (I can barely hear the  
notes with earphones) and come back at normal volume two bars later.
I tried to view the section in Studio mode and the volume level bar  
works as everything was normal.
So I tried to: remove the whole content of the bars, copy them in a  
blank staff, copy them back in original position, nothing changes;  
copy an equal section in previous bars of the score (that works ok)  
in the muted bars, they get muted too also if they played ok in the  
previous section!.
I think there's something hidden in those two bars of the Alto  
staff but I cannot figure what it is.
Turning HP off, everything plays fine, turning it on again, the  
problem comes out.

Any hints?
Should I remove these two bars in the whole score, insert two new  
bars and rewrite music?

Many thanks
Marcello




Are there any expressions of any kind in those measures? If so, check  
that they have no playback enabled. I got into trouble by duplicating  
expressions that I liked the default placements of, and editing them,  
not realising that I was keeping their playback.


I am sure there is a way to erase things like MIDI messages without  
disturbing the rest of the contents of the measure, so you might try  
that as well.


Sometimes, though, there is just corruption in the file. Your last  
paragraph would be considered to be a last resort to correct it.


Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT

[David W. Fenton]

On 27 Mar 2008 at 6:21, dhbailey wrote:

> David W. Fenton wrote:
> > On 27 Mar 2008 at 0:12, John Howell wrote:
> > 
> >> At 5:18 PM -0500 3/26/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> Cut time in 3? Is that the Zeffiro Torna meter?
> >> Not in the Malipiero edition, if my memory is anywhere close to 
> >> accurate.  But 3/2 is fairly common in later Baroque music where it's 
> >> an actual time signature and not a proportion.
> > 
> > I took the reference as referring to the 3/2 vs. 6/4 alternation.
> > 
> > I've never thought of 3/2 as cut time in 3, mostly because cut time 
> > in the period I'm dealing with usually means *4/2*. The relationships 
> > between their triple and quadruple meters were really not what we 
> > would expect.
> 
> On the other hand, to many people who come from the band or pop music 
> world, "cut time" would refer to any music with the half-note as the 
> unit of the beat since all the note values are "cut" in half.
> 
> I knew immediately what John meant when he said "cut time in 3" as would 
> many of the musicians I work with.

I knew what he meant, too, but it's not a concept that those of us 
who perform music notated in that meter ALL THE TIME actually use. At 
least not in my experience at Oberlin and NYU (and that may be the 
key -- *my* experience).

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/


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

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[David W. Fenton]

On 27 Mar 2008 at 5:54, dhbailey wrote:

> David W. Fenton wrote:
> > On 26 Mar 2008 at 6:39, dhbailey wrote:
> > 
> >> David W. Fenton wrote:
> >>> On 23 Mar 2008 at 21:55, Owain Sutton wrote:
> >>>
>  (Why
>  notate anything as 2/2, if it's likely to be heard as 2/4?)
> >>> This kind of comment makes me crazy.
> >>>
> >>> You notate it as 2/2 because MUSICIANS PLAY IT DIFFERENTLY THAN THE 
> >>> PLAY 2/4.
> >>>
> >>> Certain styles of music make more sense in 2/2 than they would in 4/4 
> >>> or 2/4.
> >> You can really hear a difference in music performed in 2/4 rather than 
> >> 2/2? 
> > 
> > You know perfectly well that's not what I said!
> > 
> [snip]
> 
> But if it's performed differently as you claim, being a sound-based art 
> form, won't there be a difference in the sound?

Well, sure, but not necessarily a sufficient difference for the 
listener to determine which meter is used in the notation.

> By claiming that the musicians will perform music differently [your 
> word] if written in 2/2 from music written in 2/4, then there must be a 
> difference in the sound.  And if there's a difference in the sound, you 
> must be able to hear it.  If you can't hear a difference in the sound, 
> is there really a difference in the way the music is played?

Red herring, again.

> I agree that there is a different psychological aspect to various 
> movements in a multi-movement work, where one duple meter may be 2/4 and 
> another be 2/2, but I still maintain that given the same piece of music 
> with the same metronome indication for the unit of beat, there won't be 
> a difference among competent musicians between two versions of the same 
> piece, one in 2/2 and one in 2/4.
> 
> So we have to agree to disagree.  :-)

Indeed, we do. And I disagree quite vigorously. In fact, I'd say that 
the more competent the musicians, the greater the difference!

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/


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

Re: [Finale] (was Partial tuplets in Finale)

[David W. Fenton]

On 27 Mar 2008 at 6:28, dhbailey wrote:

> I think I would begin such a class with the statement "90% of anything 
> is crap.  That includes the Baroque Era of music history, which we will 
> be studying in this class.  You're lucky in that we will be studying the 
> 10% of Baroque music which isn't crap, but I want you all to remember 
> that while these composers we will be studying were creating these 
> masterworks, there were many more composers turning out efficient but 
> hardly worthwhile music that we won't be studying."

While I heartily endorse Sturgeon's Law, and teaching it to students, 
I think the above approach to teaching music history is badly 
mistaken. History includes the good and the bad, and what we consider 
"good" today is only clear in comparison to what we consider "bad" 
(which quite often differs wildly from the opinions of the time). 
Teaching nothing but "masterworks" is what got music history into 
such a bind in the first place, and the approach you outline just 
makes it that much worse.

I'd leave the assessment of "good" and "bad" to the students and 
instead try to teach something that's representative of what happened 
musically during the historical period in question.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/


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

Re: [Finale] Sturgeoun's Law (was Partial tuplets in Finale)

[Chuck Israels]

On Mar 27, 2008, at 3:28 AM, dhbailey wrote:



Most music appreciation classes leave the class members with the  
impression that the historical music history periods all produced  
only masterworks by superior composers and fail to address the fact  
that much of what was written during those periods is no different  
from much which is written during our own lifetimes -- Crap.


I think that every course, middle school, high school or college  
level, should be required to begin with the statement of Sturgeon's  
Law.  And that it should be asked time and again on exams so that  
people have a more realistic image of any historical time period,  
whether music, literature, dance, or the plastic arts (painting,  
sculpture, architecture).


I think I would begin such a class with the statement "90% of  
anything is crap.  That includes the Baroque Era of music history,  
which we will be studying in this class.  You're lucky in that we  
will be studying the 10% of Baroque music which isn't crap, but I  
want you all to remember that while these composers we will be  
studying were creating these masterworks, there were many more  
composers turning out efficient but hardly worthwhile music that we  
won't be studying."





Not to make too strong a case or say that the law was completely  
suspended, but it does seem to me that, in reference to American  
popular music of (approximately) the first half of the 20th Century,  
Sturgeon's percentages need adjustment.


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

[Finale] FinWin 2k6c - HP mysteroiusly mutes a section of a score

[themark]

My case: choral SATB 4 staves score, each staff on separate MIDI 
channel, standard Human Playback active.
In a mezzoforte section for all staves, without any reason two bars of 
the Alto staff play at volume near to 0 (I can barely hear the notes 
with earphones) and come back at normal volume two bars later.
I tried to view the section in Studio mode and the volume level bar 
works as everything was normal.
So I tried to: remove the whole content of the bars, copy them in a 
blank staff, copy them back in original position, nothing changes; copy 
an equal section in previous bars of the score (that works ok) in the 
muted bars, they get muted too also if they played ok in the previous 
section!.
I think there's something hidden in those two bars of the Alto staff but 
I cannot figure what it is.
Turning HP off, everything plays fine, turning it on again, the problem 
comes out.

Any hints?
Should I remove these two bars in the whole score, insert two new bars 
and rewrite music?

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

Re: [Finale] TO BUY or not to buy

[Christopher Smith]

On Mar 27, 2008, at 6:20 AM, dhbailey wrote:


David W. Fenton wrote:

On 26 Mar 2008 at 22:25, Christopher Smith wrote:

Major new features in 2008 include linked parts

Linked parts were added in 2007, no?


Yes, but the question was about upgrading from 2005, so the option  
of upgrading to 2007 isn't available.


Thus to a 2005 user, linked parts would be a new feature should  
they upgrade to 2008.




Umm, yeah... that's what I meant! Really...

Christopher (caught with his features down) 8-)


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

AW: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[Andrew Noah Cap]

I agree with Christopher. But I think it is although a matter of timing 
and space in between the counted beats. Playing Leroy Andersons Trumpeters
Lullaby in 4/4 makes no sense.
This would be like playing trumpet while wearing a too small tuxedo.
No space for the music. 

Using certain meters goes along with certain feelings.

All Blues??? A master piece. Do not notate it, do not read it, feel it. 
Notes and rests are totally useless for that kind of music. It is too far
above

:-)

Andrew Noah Cap


-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Christopher Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. März 2008 12:39
An: finale@shsu.edu
Betreff: Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough


On Mar 26, 2008, at 6:39 AM, dhbailey wrote:

> David W. Fenton wrote:
>> On 23 Mar 2008 at 21:55, Owain Sutton wrote:
>>> (Why
>>> notate anything as 2/2, if it's likely to be heard as 2/4?)
>> This kind of comment makes me crazy.
>> You notate it as 2/2 because MUSICIANS PLAY IT DIFFERENTLY THAN  
>> THE PLAY 2/4.
>> Certain styles of music make more sense in 2/2 than they would in  
>> 4/4 or 2/4.
>
> You can really hear a difference in music performed in 2/4 rather  
> than 2/2?   Come on, now, put yourself in an audience and write the  
> meters down that you hear, and I'll be that your movements in 2  
> will be correct half the time and wrong half the time, assuming  
> you've never seen the printed music before.
>
> What's the performing difference when dividing the beat in half, if  
> using a half-note pulse and playing quarter notes or using a  
> quarter-note pulse and playing 8th notes?  A beat divided in half  
> is a beat divided in half. Isn't it?

I know what he means, if I could jump in here. The listener might not  
make a distinction, but the performer reading it might react  
differently. In a previous post (I don't know if it made it to the  
board yet!) I had made a comparison using jazz, where it is easy to  
get eighth notes to swing in 4/4, but hard to get quarter notes to  
swing in 4/2 or sixteenths to swing in 4/8. Some styles of music  
enter the performer's brain more easily in a certain notation,  
according to what we are used to. The composer can choose to ignore  
these conventions, but he may be putting up a barrier to easy  
interpretation of his music.

Christopher

(An interesting exception to the jazz swing convention: the tune All  
Blues, which for some odd reason is usually notated in 6/8 with swing  
16ths, rather than the more conventional 6/4 with swung 8ths (like  
two bars of jazz waltz). Nutty.)






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

Re: [Finale] (was Partial tuplets in Finale)

[dhbailey]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I do recall Raymond Lewenthal's "Romantic Revival" that went through at
least three record labels before sputtering out. An Indiana-based pianist
named Frank Cooper did find some good stuff--IIRC he recorded the Ignaz
Brüll 2nd piano concert. But as a whole, the 19th century did produce it's
share of stuff that deserves to be forgotten, as has every time period.



Indeed, but it's good every now and again, should anybody wish to 
investigate further or actually perform a lot of random stuff, to be 
reminded of that fact.


Most music appreciation classes leave the class members with the 
impression that the historical music history periods all produced only 
masterworks by superior composers and fail to address the fact that much 
of what was written during those periods is no different from much which 
is written during our own lifetimes -- Crap.


I think that every course, middle school, high school or college level, 
should be required to begin with the statement of Sturgeon's Law.  And 
that it should be asked time and again on exams so that people have a 
more realistic image of any historical time period, whether music, 
literature, dance, or the plastic arts (painting, sculpture, architecture).


I think I would begin such a class with the statement "90% of anything 
is crap.  That includes the Baroque Era of music history, which we will 
be studying in this class.  You're lucky in that we will be studying the 
10% of Baroque music which isn't crap, but I want you all to remember 
that while these composers we will be studying were creating these 
masterworks, there were many more composers turning out efficient but 
hardly worthwhile music that we won't be studying."


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

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT

[dhbailey]

David W. Fenton wrote:

On 27 Mar 2008 at 0:12, John Howell wrote:


At 5:18 PM -0500 3/26/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Cut time in 3? Is that the Zeffiro Torna meter?
Not in the Malipiero edition, if my memory is anywhere close to 
accurate.  But 3/2 is fairly common in later Baroque music where it's 
an actual time signature and not a proportion.


I took the reference as referring to the 3/2 vs. 6/4 alternation.

I've never thought of 3/2 as cut time in 3, mostly because cut time 
in the period I'm dealing with usually means *4/2*. The relationships 
between their triple and quadruple meters were really not what we 
would expect.




On the other hand, to many people who come from the band or pop music 
world, "cut time" would refer to any music with the half-note as the 
unit of the beat since all the note values are "cut" in half.


I knew immediately what John meant when he said "cut time in 3" as would 
many of the musicians I work with.


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

Re: [Finale] TO BUY or not to buy

[dhbailey]

David W. Fenton wrote:

On 26 Mar 2008 at 22:25, Christopher Smith wrote:


Major new features in 2008 include linked parts


Linked parts were added in 2007, no?



Yes, but the question was about upgrading from 2005, so the option of 
upgrading to 2007 isn't available.


Thus to a 2005 user, linked parts would be a new feature should they 
upgrade to 2008.


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

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[dhbailey]

David W. Fenton wrote:

On 26 Mar 2008 at 8:18, Chuck Israels wrote:

Joe Schwantner writes gorgeous music that I find difficult to read (my  
limitation - not the notation's) because he makes a point of choosing  
small note values;


It seems to me that this statement of yours show that you agree with 
my point.


Remember, I wasn't claiming that two meters *can't* be played 
identically, just that they likely will *not* be if there is a clear 
stylistic convention if which the piece is a part.




Now you've added that final condition, which you hadn't made before.  I 
agree with you on this point, given a clear stylistic convention.


But previously you were making blanket statements and then getting upset 
when we disagreed with your blanket statements.


With that condition, I agree with you.

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

Re: [Finale] Partial tuplets in Finale - slightly OT, Ferneyhough

[dhbailey]

David W. Fenton wrote:

On 26 Mar 2008 at 6:39, dhbailey wrote:


David W. Fenton wrote:

On 23 Mar 2008 at 21:55, Owain Sutton wrote:


(Why
notate anything as 2/2, if it's likely to be heard as 2/4?)

This kind of comment makes me crazy.

You notate it as 2/2 because MUSICIANS PLAY IT DIFFERENTLY THAN THE 
PLAY 2/4.


Certain styles of music make more sense in 2/2 than they would in 4/4 
or 2/4.
You can really hear a difference in music performed in 2/4 rather than 
2/2? 


You know perfectly well that's not what I said!


[snip]

But if it's performed differently as you claim, being a sound-based art 
form, won't there be a difference in the sound?


By claiming that the musicians will perform music differently [your 
word] if written in 2/2 from music written in 2/4, then there must be a 
difference in the sound.  And if there's a difference in the sound, you 
must be able to hear it.  If you can't hear a difference in the sound, 
is there really a difference in the way the music is played?


I agree that there is a different psychological aspect to various 
movements in a multi-movement work, where one duple meter may be 2/4 and 
another be 2/2, but I still maintain that given the same piece of music 
with the same metronome indication for the unit of beat, there won't be 
a difference among competent musicians between two versions of the same 
piece, one in 2/2 and one in 2/4.


So we have to agree to disagree.  :-)

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