Re: [Finale] music theory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey-anybody out there know anything about MusicPress (from the software company in Vermont)? [snip] Graphire Music Press is/was a terrific engraving program which had very elegant output, but they had an unfortunate pricing scheme which made many of the rank-and-file Finale-type or Sibelius-type users stay away and without a broad user base, it hasn't been able to keep up. They finally priced it competitively with Finale and Sibelius but by then Finale and Sibelius had firmly divided the marketplace between themselves and most newbies in the notation field took their advice from someone they knew who already was using notation software, and that probably meant they got a recommendation for Finale or Sibelius and not for Graphire (or Score.) You can visit their website at http://www.graphire.com but if you try to go to their secure order page you get a "This Page Cannot Be Found" error screen. Looks like it's dead, but I don't really know for certain. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] music theory
Hey-anybody out there know anything about MusicPress (from the software company in Vermont)? try www.graphire.com and see for yourself. When does the last update appear to be?Also seems to have migrated to the left coast. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] music theory
At 01:41 PM 2/6/2007 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >anybody out there know anything about MusicPress (from the software >company in Vermont)? Formerly available. I have it. I wrote the last documentation for it, as far as it got. It is very different from Finale. The last version is fully functional under OS9, Midi doesn't work under OSX and I believe it doesn't work at all on Intel Macs (just repeating here). It still works under WinXP, but don't know about Vista The results are very nice, but it's not musical -- it's quite graphical in approach, and its Midi input was quite rudimentary at last update. Contact me off-list (only, please) for more info. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] music theory
Hey-anybody out there know anything about MusicPress (from the software company in Vermont)? > > hey will, no condescension was intended, it was meant entirely in > fun, but yes i did in fact mean "hey bruce, don't generalize" in > response to bruce's response to your response. (sorry for confusion > in attribution) > > nothing nasty meant at all, just picking up the subtle and mostly > unnoticed joke - exploiting a totally innocent typo - and kicking it > further along the gutter. > > we now return you to your regularly scheduled programme, "finale: the > final frontier". > > "ain't seen you 'round here b'fore, where you frum, stranger?" > "well, i reckon i be from over yonder, sibeliusville, thought i'd > come and have a look 'round, see what y'all'r about." > "you best be keepin' on movin' there pardner, folks 'round here don't > take too kindly to your type." > "don't see what the fuss is about, we could probly learn a thang or > two frum each other, i reckon." > "dang, i reckon you're right, pardner. whiskey?" > "why thanks, pardner, mighty kind of you." > "bartender, two doubles, straight-up." > > the two cowboys kissed and made amends with each other. > > [scene deleted by censors] > > later that evening, the clan fight ended with the signing of the 1857 > "no more flame wars" treaty. > > -- > > shirling & neueweise ... new music publishers > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com > ___ > 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] music theory
hey will, no condescension was intended, it was meant entirely in fun, but yes i did in fact mean "hey bruce, don't generalize" in response to bruce's response to your response. (sorry for confusion in attribution) nothing nasty meant at all, just picking up the subtle and mostly unnoticed joke - exploiting a totally innocent typo - and kicking it further along the gutter. we now return you to your regularly scheduled programme, "finale: the final frontier". "ain't seen you 'round here b'fore, where you frum, stranger?" "well, i reckon i be from over yonder, sibeliusville, thought i'd come and have a look 'round, see what y'all'r about." "you best be keepin' on movin' there pardner, folks 'round here don't take too kindly to your type." "don't see what the fuss is about, we could probly learn a thang or two frum each other, i reckon." "dang, i reckon you're right, pardner. whiskey?" "why thanks, pardner, mighty kind of you." "bartender, two doubles, straight-up." the two cowboys kissed and made amends with each other. [scene deleted by censors] later that evening, the clan fight ended with the signing of the 1857 "no more flame wars" treaty. -- shirling & neueweise ... new music publishers mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Music theory
Sorry. My bad, I may have quoted the original wrong, but Will didn't put that silly remark. Actually, I would have loved to have a good theory prof, but alas I was not a music major and my knowledge is from friends, books, and this list. I was just remarking on the spelling error. :-) shirling & neueweise wrote: Music Theory, maybe throughout history, is and was always a result of analizing, ... Ah, yes. I've always thought this was true. hey will, don't generalize, i had some really interesting profs over the years... well, at least one. (yeh i thought that would go unnoticed too) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] music theory
>>Music Theory, maybe throughout history, is and was always a result >>of analizing, ... > >Ah, yes. I've always thought this was true. hey will, don't generalize, i had some really interesting profs over the years... well, at least one. (yeh i thought that would go unnoticed too) I did not write any of this and this should be clear to anyone following this discussion. I wrote something completely different. So check your case before you say something condenscending. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Music theory
On Feb 6, 2007, at 7:14 AM, shirling & neueweise wrote: Music Theory, maybe throughout history, is and was always a result of analizing, ... Ah, yes. I've always thought this was true. hey will, don't generalize, i had some really interesting profs over the years... well, at least one. Me too. The extraordinary composer, Harold Shapero, who gave me a "B" for bad in harmony and then said, "You're enough of a musician that you'll do this all over for yourself by the time you're 30." At age 29, I went to Hall Overton, who showed me how to do just that (among other important things), and whatever I learned about writing music from teachers, I learned mostly from those two. How did Harold know I'd actually want to learn harmony one day - that's the mystery! Harold is still alive and writing beautiful music - retired from Brandies University. Chuck (yeh i thought that would go unnoticed too) -- shirling & neueweise ... new music publishers mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ 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] Music theory
Music Theory, maybe throughout history, is and was always a result of analizing, ... Ah, yes. I've always thought this was true. hey will, don't generalize, i had some really interesting profs over the years... well, at least one. (yeh i thought that would go unnoticed too) -- shirling & neueweise ... new music publishers mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Music theory
On 6 Feb 2007 at 0:57, Will Denayer wrote: > We often seem to assume that theory follows practice, because to > argue the reverse seems nonsensical, but perhaps the attitude or > even the worldview which would give rise to theoretical treatises > in the field of music as in many other fields became embedded in > the practice of writing music from a certain point onwards to begin > with and then this thesis makes no sense. Theory *usually* follows practice, but I can think of at least one example where practice followed theory, and that's the case of modal/Garlandian notation in the Parisian Organum repertory. The fact is that the theorists wrote about the rhythmic modes and invented mode 2 (short long) to balance mode 1 (long short), but at the time of the theorizing, mode 2 really didn't exist. But after the theorizing, music started being composed that *did* use mode 2, because it had been revealed theoretically, and so was then used in actual music. I'm sure there are other such examples, though probably none so stark, since the theoretical invention of mode 2 was more a result of the medieval philosophical state of mind than it was a musical necessity. -- 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] Music theory
Will Denayer wrote: Music Theory, maybe throughout history, is and was always a result of analizing, ... Ah, yes. I've always thought this was true. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Music theory
Music Theory, maybe throughout history, is and was always a result of analizing, closely watching at and listening to what other people already *did*. A rule did not neccessarily apply to them, as theory was always sort of later than the actual works theory dealt with. So what is does is to afterwards find out why certain horizontal / vertical elements of music actually sound good, for example. We often seem to assume that theory follows practice, because to argue the reverse seems nonsensical, but perhaps the attitude or even the worldview which would give rise to theoretical treatises in the field of music as in many other fields became embedded in the practice of writing music from a certain point onwards to begin with and then this thesis makes no sense. On an anecdotical note, what about composers such as Hindemith and Messiaen who both wrote long theoretical treatises and started to compose from there? What about Schoenberg and Webern whos theoretical work on polyphony (it was the topic of his doctoral dissertation) was enormously important for his compositional output? What about the theories of Boulez, Stockhausen and Xenakis? What about electronic music? In the cases where theory came sort of later, it would be interesting to know how much later and for which reasons. This is something that I am asking myself. I do not know when Bach became the prime example to study when talking about traditional counterpoint. We accept Bachs rules now as the common rules of counterpoint (although Bach broke a lot of them). This is because Bachs rules make a lot of sense to us now, but maybe also because there were powerful interests behind it during the 19th Century? Because we all had to learn it? I do not know much about this, but I wish there was more interest in other important polyphonic composers, in Ockeghem for example, who I find unbelievably good. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Music Theory/Duke Ellington
On 11 Feb 2005, at 1:07 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: On Feb 11, 2005, at 10:23 AM, John Howell wrote: (And the "Pink Panther" theme remains the single most widely-heard example of parallel 5ths since the 9th century!) More than "Smoke on the Water?" Or "Smells Like Teen Spirit." Or, for that matter, pretty much any rock tune written since the late 1960's. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Music Theory
I can't say I've ever run across a convincing theory of rhythm (universal rather than local I mean) -- I'd be curious to know where I might find more info on ATS. A book to recommend anyone? Thanks Jerry On 10-Feb-05, at 1:12 PM, Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Until I got to grad school, and encountered a gentleman named Wilson Coker, I had no idea how significantly the process of musical analysis would shape my destiny. We learned a tremendous amount of info from the study of logical connectors, Shenker (sp?), the study of Emotion and Meaning in Music (Meyer, I think), the music of Hindemith, and much more. However, if there was one "magic bullet" revealed to me, it was the concept of the rhythmic cycle: i.e., Arsis, Thesis, Stasis. Once I was made aware of its presence in both micro and macro applications, the whole world of gesture and phrase structure became apparent. This info, coupled with the search for all sorts of intra-musical references is what has allowed me, over all my years as a choral and instrumental director to instruct performers as to where the rhythmic cycle should be applied. So, was the study of music theory key to my experience as a teacher? ... I guess!!! Dean I know what public school music has done for me. I have witnessed the journey it has provided my daughter and hundreds of other students I have been fortunate enough to teach. I am both amazed and outraged that there are those who would knowingly disenfranchise generations of humans by excising the practice and inculcation of an entire heritage from our children’s curricula. Dean M. Estabrook Retired Church Musician Composer, Arranger Adjudicator Amateur Golfer ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Gerald Berg ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Music Theory/Duke Ellington
On Feb 11, 2005, at 10:56 AM, John Howell wrote: The academic approach is exemplified by the curriculum at Berklee, which emphasized (and may still do so) transcribing from recordings of "Golden Age" be-boppers. Terrific ear training, no question about it, but memorizing Charlie Parker solos is only the beginning, not the eventual goal, for a jazz player or singer. I think most jazz practitioners realize that. The be-bop greats themselves weren't imitating anybody else, Absolutely not true. Bird himself was trying to simultaneously channel Lester Young and Coleman Hawkins, with the technique of Jimmy Dorsey. Like all music, bebop grew out of trying to sound unique while building on what came before. There isn't one jazz musician of note that wasn't, at some point, trying to sound like some other musician who came before them. and the market for imitation Charlie Parkers is somewhat limited. Hmm, tell that to Phil Woods, Lee Konitz, Bob Mover, heck, why restrict the list to alto saxophonists, include almost any saxophonist formed after 1950, and a whole cartload of musicians playing other instruments as well. That being said, there were often great strides made by musicians imitating players of instruments OTHER than their own, which would seem to support the kernel of your statement, that we don't need another Bird, but we DO need to know what he did and how he did it. Disclaimer: While I've worked with some really fine jazz players over the years, it isn't my field and I'm not up to date on what the really creative people are doing these days. I'm just looking at it from inside academia. Musicians who want to play some of the music that the really creative guys are playing have only one choice – transcribe it from a recording. There is a huge time lag between jazz being performed and the written music being generally available, unlike most non-pop. (A few recent exceptions like Bob Brookmeyer, Steve Swallow, Dave Douglas, who have made their written music available almost immediately, and sometimes right there in the CD, underline this phenomenon rather than disprove it.) Rather than being a drawback in the field, it actually works out rather well, as only the musicians who REALLY love it and have sensitive enough ears to hear it are going to go to the trouble of transcribing new jazz music, and in the process they are going to absorb it very effectively into their style. Half-formed musicians who only ever got as far as their university transcription assignments probably won't have the drive to keep growing, and will stay resolutely in the middle of the pack. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Music Theory/Duke Ellington
On Feb 11, 2005, at 10:23 AM, John Howell wrote: (And the "Pink Panther" theme remains the single most widely-heard example of parallel 5ths since the 9th century!) More than "Smoke on the Water?" ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Music Theory/Duke Ellington
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:56:24 -0500, John Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >At 7:38 AM -0800 2/11/05, Brad Beyenhof wrote: >>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:23:36 -0500, John Howell wrote: >>>And I don't even need to do more than mention jazz, which has finally >>>made it as an academic study and lost sponteneity and creativity in >>>the process (referring to the current fad of be-bop worship). >> >>Be-bop worship? I'm not aware of this fad. Do you mean the worship of >>be-bop, or the use of be-bop in church music? Either way, I'm not >>familiar with this phenomenon. >> >>I guess you *will* need to "do more than mention" jazz. :) > >The academic approach is exemplified by the curriculum at Berklee, >which emphasized (and may still do so) transcribing from recordings >of "Golden Age" be-boppers. Terrific ear training, no question about >it, but memorizing Charlie Parker solos is only the beginning, not >the eventual goal, for a jazz player or singer. And that Berklee >approach has been adopted at many other schools, including this one >before state budget cuts gutted our excellent and growing jazz >program. The be-bop greats themselves weren't imitating anybody >else, and the market for imitation Charlie Parkers is somewhat >limited. Ah yes... I know what you mean. I just hadn't heard it described as "worship" before. -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com FinaleIRC (come chat!): http://finaleirc.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Music Theory/Duke Ellington
At 7:38 AM -0800 2/11/05, Brad Beyenhof wrote: On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:23:36 -0500, John Howell wrote: And I don't even need to do more than mention jazz, which has finally made it as an academic study and lost sponteneity and creativity in the process (referring to the current fad of be-bop worship). Be-bop worship? I'm not aware of this fad. Do you mean the worship of be-bop, or the use of be-bop in church music? Either way, I'm not familiar with this phenomenon. I guess you *will* need to "do more than mention" jazz. :) The academic approach is exemplified by the curriculum at Berklee, which emphasized (and may still do so) transcribing from recordings of "Golden Age" be-boppers. Terrific ear training, no question about it, but memorizing Charlie Parker solos is only the beginning, not the eventual goal, for a jazz player or singer. And that Berklee approach has been adopted at many other schools, including this one before state budget cuts gutted our excellent and growing jazz program. The be-bop greats themselves weren't imitating anybody else, and the market for imitation Charlie Parkers is somewhat limited. Disclaimer: While I've worked with some really fine jazz players over the years, it isn't my field and I'm not up to date on what the really creative people are doing these days. I'm just looking at it from inside academia. John -- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Music Theory/Duke Ellington
Brad Beyenhof wrote: On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:23:36 -0500, John Howell wrote: And I don't even need to do more than mention jazz, which has finally made it as an academic study and lost sponteneity and creativity in the process (referring to the current fad of be-bop worship). Be-bop worship? I'm not aware of this fad. Do you mean the worship of be-bop, or the use of be-bop in church music? Either way, I'm not familiar with this phenomenon. You're not familiar with the Church of John Coltrane? (No - I'm not kidding!) cd -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/dershem/# ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Music Theory/Duke Ellington
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:23:36 -0500, John Howell wrote: > And I don't even need to do more than mention jazz, which has finally > made it as an academic study and lost sponteneity and creativity in > the process (referring to the current fad of be-bop worship). Be-bop worship? I'm not aware of this fad. Do you mean the worship of be-bop, or the use of be-bop in church music? Either way, I'm not familiar with this phenomenon. I guess you *will* need to "do more than mention" jazz. :) -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com FinaleIRC (come chat!): http://finaleirc.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Music Theory/Duke Ellington
At 9:57 PM -0800 2/10/05, Carl Dershem wrote: Bruce K H Kau wrote: At 04:26 PM 2/10/2005 +0100, Daniel Wolf wrote: There is a tremendous fear of music theory out there, with many musicians having the sense that music-theoretic discourse "kills the magic" of music making. *sigh* I have run into more than my share of people who even say that learning to read music (music theory at its most basic level) is not important to their being able to make music. Trouble is, these people often have better chops that I do (not that hard to achieve). Chops will get you gigs, but reading well will git you MORE gigs. And reading ANYTHING will get you a lot of gigs. As a generalization I would have to agree with you, but that ignores the fact that in a lot of styles, some of them very commercially viable, your statement is NOT true. I don't know what the scene is like nowadays, but Anita Kerr said in her book that there were two kinds of backup vocal sessions in the Nashville scene, the reading sessions (for whom your statement is very true) and the head sessions, for singers who had the equally valuable ability to sing harmonies by ear, even though they didn't have the vocabulary to analyze what they were singing. And of course there are non-Western cultures in which music is never notated, and the very thought of tying someone down to a fixed and unchangeable part is not just foreign but ludicrous. And I don't even need to do more than mention jazz, which has finally made it as an academic study and lost sponteneity and creativity in the process (referring to the current fad of be-bop worship). Learning music theory is learning labels to attach to what your ear can already hear. If you don't have that ear and can't hear what the music is doing, studying theory will not make you a better musician. The ear is an absolute necessity; the theory is a nice, useful add-on. On the other hand, there are situations in which sightreading skill is money in the bank, as you say, and in which the charts (the "music") ARE what's on the paper, and you get paid for being able to bring the chicken scratchings to life and get it right the first time. I was on tour with the Henry Mancini orchestra, and during a rehearsal break one of the cellists, who had just done poorly on a graduate theory exam, said something to Hank about, "You never really USE any of that, do you?" He smiled and said, "It's the basics, honey, it's the basics!" And we went on stage never having played all the way through any of the charts. He just hit the spots he knew could be problematic. (And the "Pink Panther" theme remains the single most widely-heard example of parallel 5ths since the 9th century!) John -- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Music Theory/Duke Ellington
Bruce K H Kau wrote: At 04:26 PM 2/10/2005 +0100, Daniel Wolf wrote: There is a tremendous fear of music theory out there, with many musicians having the sense that music-theoretic discourse "kills the magic" of music making. *sigh* I have run into more than my share of people who even say that learning to read music (music theory at its most basic level) is not important to their being able to make music. Trouble is, these people often have better chops that I do (not that hard to achieve). Those kinds of people, though, often get quite defensive and offensive when you put a piece of music in front of them and suggest that you and they play that piece next. If reading music were truly unimportant, they wouldn't get so defensive about not being able to read it and wouldn't be so offensive in accusing you of trying to trip them up and how people who believe in music theory just invented it so as to be a roadblock to the "real" musicians of the world. (I've actually heard some people say that!) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Music Theory/Duke Ellington
Bruce K H Kau wrote: At 04:26 PM 2/10/2005 +0100, Daniel Wolf wrote: There is a tremendous fear of music theory out there, with many musicians having the sense that music-theoretic discourse "kills the magic" of music making. *sigh* I have run into more than my share of people who even say that learning to read music (music theory at its most basic level) is not important to their being able to make music. Trouble is, these people often have better chops that I do (not that hard to achieve). Chops will get you gigs, but reading well will git you MORE gigs. And reading ANYTHING will get you a lot of gigs. cd -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/dershem/# ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Music Theory/Duke Ellington
At 04:26 PM 2/10/2005 +0100, Daniel Wolf wrote: >There is a tremendous fear of music theory out there, with many >musicians having the sense that music-theoretic discourse "kills the >magic" of music making. *sigh* I have run into more than my share of people who even say that learning to read music (music theory at its most basic level) is not important to their being able to make music. Trouble is, these people often have better chops that I do (not that hard to achieve). - Bruce K. H. Kau[EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Aina Haina, Honolulu, Hawai'i "Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning ..." ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Music Theory
Until I got to grad school, and encountered a gentleman named Wilson Coker, I had no idea how significantly the process of musical analysis would shape my destiny. We learned a tremendous amount of info from the study of logical connectors, Shenker (sp?), the study of Emotion and Meaning in Music (Meyer, I think), the music of Hindemith, and much more. However, if there was one "magic bullet" revealed to me, it was the concept of the rhythmic cycle: i.e., Arsis, Thesis, Stasis. Once I was made aware of its presence in both micro and macro applications, the whole world of gesture and phrase structure became apparent. This info, coupled with the search for all sorts of intra-musical references is what has allowed me, over all my years as a choral and instrumental director to instruct performers as to where the rhythmic cycle should be applied. So, was the study of music theory key to my experience as a teacher? ... I guess!!! Dean I know what public school music has done for me. I have witnessed the journey it has provided my daughter and hundreds of other students I have been fortunate enough to teach. I am both amazed and outraged that there are those who would knowingly disenfranchise generations of humans by excising the practice and inculcation of an entire heritage from our children’s curricula. Dean M. Estabrook Retired Church Musician Composer, Arranger Adjudicator Amateur Golfer ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Music Theory/Duke Ellington
There is a tremendous fear of music theory out there, with many musicians having the sense that music-theoretic discourse "kills the magic" of music making. However, I find that that such feelings can often be alleviated by identifying the tasks that theorists set as modest ones with "results" that are, ultimately, provisional, such that ever-deeper and wider-ranging analyses of music have only deepened our sense of music's mysteries. First of all, music theories are simply ways of talking about music, and doing so within communities of musicians who share a tradition and some common vocabulary for talking about music. This discourse has a modest program, largely because it -- as if by definition -- does a good job of describing the mechanics of music making, but a lousy job with the emotions and meanings of music making, but by and large, it stays out of the territories where it is less effective, albeit with the caveat that there are likely to be connections between the results of our more mechanical researches and such big themes, but these connections are presently very vague. Further, a theory of music inevitably suggests real material connections within single works of music, between individual works, and between repertoires of works, and it does so using tools (language, maths) that are basically external to practical music-making, so that a music theory may often be a way of discovering previously unknown aspects of musical works that can be directly exploited by interpreters. Finally, the end-product of a musical theory is seldom just the analysis of familiar musics; it may well point to material and formal possibilities for new musics Daniel Wolf ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Music Theory/Duke Ellington
In defense of music theory -- it seems to me (as someone who has taught it mostly to performers for 25 years) that a primary function is help people's brains become aware of what their ear already knows. (I know, it all happens in the brain . . . guess I'm talking left-brain, right-brain -- oops that is too simplistic for biologists these days). One can speak and write without having studied grammar. But doesn't understanding grammar give one more power and control over words, especially if ones autodidactic approach isn't bearing fruit (one of my teachers used to say that the problems with autodidacts is that they had bad teachers). To paraphrase Milton Babbitt, one may always choose to keep oneself ignorant of the constraints under which one works. That is OK for some, but not for others. As for the argument that music that sounds good IS good -- well of course. But does that mean that your own tastes are universal? And does that mean that it is impossible to acquire an appreciation and affection over time? Haven't any of you hated something the first time, only to come to love it? Like with food -- the first taste of strong-smelling cheese, or of brandy, or of fine wine, often results in a wonder how anyone could like it. Maybe Duke Ellington should have said: if it sounds good to me right now, it is good to me right now. And anyway, his comment was to argue for inclusiveness. Let's not twist his words to use them to exclude anyone from the "good music" club. And why are people so quick to wish to condemn a particular composer or stylistic approach, claiming some means of determining -- maybe through science, maybe through esthetic argument -- whether something is universally good or bad? The literature world is large enough for James Joyce and for Danielle Steele. Why can't the music world be large enough for all composers whose music inspires affection in someone other than themselves? I hate it when people tell me I don't need to understand what I'm doing (music theory), or that I can't possibly find anything redeeming in music I love. David Froom ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
