Re: [Finale] very OT notation (burn before reading!)
Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Actually, I have more respect for your particular instrumental subculture than most. I can't imagine how frightening it would be to be sitting in the horn section, in a performance with a major orchestra in front of an huge audience ... counting a 200 bar tacet, waiting to enter on a high g, completely solo. Lord, I broke a cold sweat just writing this. When you write it like that, it certainly is scary. But it's important to remember -- they CHOSE this instrument and this repertoire. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] very OT notation (burn before reading!)
Imagine that ... a lively conversation among horn players! Dean On Nov 3, 2007, at 9:53 PM, Robert Patterson wrote: On 11/2/07, Richard Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there is a lively discussion among horn players about whether the 4th horn solo in the 3rd mvt of Beethoven 9 was written for valve horn. And yet, John Ericson, very eloquently, dispassionately, perspicaciously, and convincingly thinks it was not. Majority does not rule in these matters. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home Don't worry about the end of the world, it's already tomorrow in Australia. Charles Shultz ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] very OT notation (burn before reading!)
Hey! We're a fun bunch!! RGS Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Imagine that ... a lively conversation among horn players! Dean On Nov 3, 2007, at 9:53 PM, Robert Patterson wrote: On 11/2/07, Richard Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there is a lively discussion among horn players about whether the 4th horn solo in the 3rd mvt of Beethoven 9 was written for valve horn. And yet, John Ericson, very eloquently, dispassionately, perspicaciously, and convincingly thinks it was not. Majority does not rule in these matters. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home Don't worry about the end of the world, it's already tomorrow in Australia. Charles Shultz ___ 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] very OT notation (burn before reading!)
Actually, I have more respect for your particular instrumental subculture than most. I can't imagine how frightening it would be to be sitting in the horn section, in a performance with a major orchestra in front of an huge audience ... counting a 200 bar tacet, waiting to enter on a high g, completely solo. Lord, I broke a cold sweat just writing this. Respectfully submitted, Dean On Nov 4, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Richard Smith wrote: Hey! We're a fun bunch!! RGS Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Imagine that ... a lively conversation among horn players! Dean On Nov 3, 2007, at 9:53 PM, Robert Patterson wrote: On 11/2/07, Richard Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there is a lively discussion among horn players about whether the 4th horn solo in the 3rd mvt of Beethoven 9 was written for valve horn. And yet, John Ericson, very eloquently, dispassionately, perspicaciously, and convincingly thinks it was not. Majority does not rule in these matters. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home Don't worry about the end of the world, it's already tomorrow in Australia. Charles Shultz ___ 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 Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home Don't worry about the end of the world, it's already tomorrow in Australia. Charles Shultz ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] very OT notation (burn before reading!)
On 11/2/07, Richard Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there is a lively discussion among horn players about whether the 4th horn solo in the 3rd mvt of Beethoven 9 was written for valve horn. And yet, John Ericson, very eloquently, dispassionately, perspicaciously, and convincingly thinks it was not. Majority does not rule in these matters. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] very OT notation (burn before reading!)
At 12:01 PM -0400 11/1/07, Stu McIntire wrote: Thanks much for this history lesson. Regarding Greensleeves, does this mean that it is always historically incorrect to perform it with the fifth note NOT lowered? Hi, Stu. Of course not, but since we've all heard it sung both ways, I think it's useful to know how 16th century singers would have approached it. The crazy thing is that the raised note actually sounds more modal than the solmized version! I'd call it a sort of transitional melody that works both ways, with the raised C#s very tonal or the dorian C naturals more modal. But don't let theorists tell you how to perform anything! John -- John R. Howell 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] very OT notation (burn before reading!)
Stu McIntire wrote: Thanks much for this history lesson. Regarding Greensleeves, does this mean that it is always historically incorrect to perform it with the fifth note NOT lowered? Depends on how far back in history you want to go -- Jeff Beck did a wonderful acoustic guitar version back in the 60s (the 1960s, that is, not the 1260s) on his Truth album and he raised that note from the traditionally lowered pitch and it opened my eyes to a whole new piece of music and new possibilities in music in general (I was an impressionable undergrad music major when I first heard it in 1970 or 1971). -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] very OT notation (burn before reading!)
Thanks much for this history lesson. Regarding Greensleeves, does this mean that it is always historically incorrect to perform it with the fifth note NOT lowered? Stu ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] very OT notation (burn before reading!)
dhbailey wrote: Jeff Beck did a wonderful acoustic guitar version back in the 60s I find whole question of performance history and how it informs our listening to be quite interesting. This is especially true of tune like that for Greensleeves, with its meandering inflected 6th degree. Is the composer of this tune known? But even in much more recent history, where the composer is well-known, questions abound. Here are two thorny ones from the world of horn music. Brahms wrote is horn trio for the natural horn, but because it was so difficult without valves, and because valve-horn playing was so well-established by then, most performance in his lifetime were probably on valve horn. Conversely, Schumann wrote his Concertstuck for the absolute bleeding edge of technology (for his time): valved horns. But valve horns then were so crude, and the skill of playing them so fresh, that in early performances the most difficult top part was probably played on natural horn. (The most objective and informed expert I know on valve vs. natural horn practice is John Ericson, who I believe is at Arizona State.) This leaves aside the whole thesis of Richard Taruskin (e.g., google his book, Text and Act) that historically informed performances are not really about hearing, e.g., Bach the way an early-18th cent. person heard his music. He thinks that is not possible. After all, unlike the 18th-century person we've also heard Strauss, Stockhausen, and Pink Floyd, and even the most rigorous historically informed performance has jets flying overhead and car horns blowing outside. (These days, probably cell phone beepers too.) Taruskin's thesis (which I find convincing) is that historically informed performances are/were more about finding a new way to hear Bach in the 20th century. That is, they are a 20th century phenomenon and part of the performance history of these pieces *in the 20th century*. A cycnic might add that they also allowed the recording industry to sell a whole new set of standard rep recordings to their audiences. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] very OT notation (burn before reading!)
At 11:25 AM -0500 11/2/07, Robert Patterson wrote: dhbailey wrote: Jeff Beck did a wonderful acoustic guitar version back in the 60s I find whole question of performance history and how it informs our listening to be quite interesting. This is especially true of tune like that for Greensleeves, with its meandering inflected 6th degree. Is the composer of this tune known? I think not, and we always have to be careful to differentiate between a tune and a particular set of lyrics, since the two were often interchangeable. (And indeed, the What Child Is This lyrics are a 19th century addition or contrafactum, I believe.) According to Wikipedia: Greesleeves is a traditional English folk song and tune, basically a ground of the form called a romanesca. A broadside ballad by this name was registered at the London Stationer's Company in 1580 as in the surviving A Handful of Pleasant Delights (1584) as A New Courtly Sonnet of the Lady Green Sleeves. To the new tune of Green sleeves. It remains debatable whether this suggests that an 'old' tune of Greensleeves was in circulation, or which one our familiar tune is. Many surviving sets of lyrics were written to this tune. The tune is also found in several late 16th century and early 17th century sources, such as Ballet's MS Lute Book and Het Luitboek van Thysius, as well as various manuscripts preserved in the Cambridge University libraries. A widely-believed (but completely unproven) legend is that it was composed by King Henry VIII (1491-1547) for his lover and future queen consort Anne Boleyn. Anne, the youngest daughter of Thomas Boleyn, rejected Henry's attempts to seduce her. This rejection is apparently referred to in the song, when the writer's love cast me off discourteously. However, it is most unlikely that King Henry VIII wrote it, as the song is written in a style which was not known in England until after Henry VIII died. It is widely acknowledged that Lady Green Sleeves was at the very least a promiscuous young woman and perhaps a prostitute.[1] The reference to the colour of her sleeves suggests grass stains from a recent rendezvous with a suitor. Additionally, in England the colour green was associated with prostitution. It is said that the green sleeves were removable and required to be worn by prostitutes as a label of their profession.[citation needed] [Sleeves in general were separate from bodices in this time period, and were made to be tied on and thus interchangeable. --John] An alternative explanation is that Lady Green Sleeves was, as a result of of her attire, incorrectly assumed to be immoral. Her discourteous rejection of the singer's advances quite clearly makes the point that she is not.[2] In the page 500 of the Canterbury Tales (Penguin Classics, ISBN 0-140-42438-5), the translator Nevill Coghill explains that green (for Chaucer's age was the color of) lightness in love. This is echoed in 'Greensleeves is my delight' and elsewhere. Never mind that traditional English folk song is simply a way of saying we don't have a clue who wrote it, but obviously someone did! But even in much more recent history, where the composer is well-known, questions abound. Here are two thorny ones from the world of horn music. Brahms wrote is horn trio for the natural horn, but because it was so difficult without valves, and because valve-horn playing was so well-established by then, most performance in his lifetime were probably on valve horn. I think he's known to have said he preferred the sound of the natural horn, but he wrote parts that could not be played without valves (i.e., the horn in B natural basso in one of the symphonies, a transposition of a tritone on F horn!). This leaves aside the whole thesis of Richard Taruskin (e.g., google his book, Text and Act) that historically informed performances are not really about hearing, e.g., Bach the way an early-18th cent. person heard his music. He thinks that is not possible. After all, unlike the 18th-century person we've also heard Strauss, Stockhausen, and Pink Floyd, and even the most rigorous historically informed performance has jets flying overhead and car horns blowing outside. (These days, probably cell phone beepers too.) And back in the day the street hawkers singing their wares would also have been a problem! But Taruskin's thesis relies a bit too much on pure theory and philosophy for me. The fact is that an excellent modern baroque orchestra DOES sound quite different from an excellent modern orchestra using 19th century performance practices, making the sound new, different, and for my ear very attractive. Then of course there are the nitty gritty details of phrasing, ornamentation, and all the rest of them that CAN be learned and applied, and it doesn't really matter on a practical level whether our ears have been tainted by other musical styles. We really are capable of doing more
Re: [Finale] very OT notation (burn before reading!)
John Howell wrote: The fact is that an excellent modern baroque orchestra DOES sound quite different from an excellent modern orchestra using 19th century performance practices, It would take a very deaf ear indeed for anyone to argue differently. I find nothing in what I've read of Taruskin but what that he would likely completely agree. Nor can I say that I would rather hear Marais played on 19th cent. instruments. The point is not that historically informed practice is not different, nor even that it is not better. The point is that it is a 20th cent. (and 21st cent.) performance practice. Not a (in the case of Bach) 18th cent. performance practice. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] very OT notation (burn before reading!)
Robert Patterson wrote: But even in much more recent history, where the composer is well-known, questions abound. Here are two thorny ones from the world of horn music. Brahms wrote is horn trio for the natural horn, but because it was so difficult without valves, and because valve-horn playing was so well-established by then, most performance in his lifetime were probably on valve horn. Conversely, Schumann wrote his Concertstuck for the absolute bleeding edge of technology (for his time): valved horns. But valve horns then were so crude, and the skill of playing them so fresh, that in early performances the most difficult top part was probably played on natural horn. (The most objective and informed expert I know on valve vs. natural horn practice is John Ericson, who I believe is at Arizona State.) Just a couple of observations from a horn player. 1. The first part on the Concertstuck is so high, on an F horn it's almost all open anyway. When you play on the open horn that way, it's more like singing than playing because it's all lip and ear. Today it's usually played with a triple horn or a descant double so valves are more necessary. 2. Somewhere else in this thread someone suggested that the Brahms 2nd Symphony parts in B natural would not be possible without valves. On the contrary, the hand horn is simply crooked in B and played as in any other key. No transposition is needed until valves are involved. 3. Interestingly, there is a lively discussion among horn players about whether the 4th horn solo in the 3rd mvt of Beethoven 9 was written for valve horn. Most think that it was. Here we're only talking about 2 or 3 years after the first (very crude) valves. Talk about bleeding edge!! Richard Smith http://www.rgsmithmusic.com http://horn.rgsmithmusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] very OT notation (burn before reading!)
Hello John (and David). Thanks for clarification. You know, having worked as a conductor in Germany, the Netherlands and -of course- in my own country, I've been frustrated by many misunderstandings caused by the different pitch names. The B/H discussion invited me to tell something from what I remember of my musical education, nearly 50 years ago now. By no means I pretended to be historically correct. I can only hope that somehow there will be more understanding to each others *point-de-vue*. Hans You will excuse me for any typo's due to a visual handicap. Op 01-nov-07, om 05:19 heeft John Howell het volgende geschreven: Hello, Hans, and you are very close to the truth in these matters. [snip] Like I said: monks with feathers. John -- John R. Howell ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] very OT notation (burn before reading!)
At 12:07 PM +0100 10/31/07, Hans Swinnen wrote: In the 12th century or something when introducing a 7th note to the already existing hexachord, there was a babylonic confusion about the name. We know that the first syllabe of each verse came out the hymne for St Johannes (Ut..., Re..., Mi..., etc.) where indeed every sentence started a tone above the previous. But what about the new, seventh note? A solution was found at the end of the hymne: Sanctus Iohannis has lent his initials to name the Si. But..., a second problem arised by introducing the musica ficta: should it be a high or a low Si? Therefore we invented two new signs: a rondinum and a quadratum. The quadratum looks like a h, our natural sign, later even transformed to a sharp, while the rondinum stand for a lowered (b). This system has evolved to other steps of the scale. The names C-D-E... (or originally A-B(H)-C...) were invented later. Hello, Hans, and you are very close to the truth in these matters. First, the chronology. Guido d'Arezzo invented both the hexachord system and staff notation in the early 11th century, probably around AD 1030. And he composed the hymn tune which generated the six syllable names for the notes in the hexachord. (The hymn itself, which is to say the poetry, had been around for about a century at the time.) His particular genius was to have taken different ideas that had been kicking around for 2 centuries or more and put them together in a new way, and his motivation was to find a way to teach the choirboys who were under his care all the chants of the Mass and Holy Office, a way that was better than teaching them each chant by ear. He succeeded brilliantly, and wrote that the training period, using his system of hexachordal analysis, was dramatically reduced from 10 years to 2 years, and his trained choristers could sightread a new chant from staff notation. This opened up the future possibility of using choirboys in polyphonic music while their voices had not yet broken. The secret of the hexachord's successes was always knowing where the halfsteps were on the staff, between mi and fa in each of the three hexachords. But Guido's system already incorporated the letter names of the notes. His gamut (which represented all the notes used in chant for men's and boys' voices, and NOT all the theoretically possible notes) named each note with its letter name PLUS the solfege syllables that note could have in each of the three hexachords. So the note A=440 hz could serve as la in the natural hexachord, as mi in the soft hexachord, or as re in the hard hexachord, and was named Alamire. (A nom de guerre adopted by one of King Henry VIII's spies, who like Henry was a musician!) Guido's system, devised for teaching purposes, was so successful that it was still in use at the early 17th century, some 600 years later, and was used in Thomas Morley's A Plaine and Easie Introduction to Practicall Musicke late in the 16th century. So while I do not know for sure where or when the syllable ti or si was added, it was probably no earlier than the 17th century and certainly not as early as the 12th. And you may be perfectly correct about the origin of S.I., although it could equally well be an urban legend. Incidentally, Guido's system was the original Movable Do (actually Movable Ut) system, and only much later did the Fixed Do syllables which you identify as Italian replace the letter names which Guido had used. Which leaves the matter of B and H (or more properly b and h). There was a reason that Guido needed to use three overlapping hexachords, and that reason was the note b. It was the ONLY variable note used in the chant of his time, and so was considered unstable. Thus his natural hexachord (c d e f g a) avoided B entirely; the soft hexachord (f g a bb c d) used the lowered form of B; and the hard hexachord (g a b c d e) used the raised form of B. (Remember, the key to the use of the hexachords was that there was ALWAYS a halfstep between mi and fa, the two notes at the center of the 6-note pitch set.) Thus, the lowered form of B was indicated by a lower case b, which indeed did develop into our flat sign. And the raised form of B was indicated by a squared-off lower case b, which evolved into our sharp sign, our natural sign (much later in history), and apparently to the Germanic use of H for the raised B. Originally it was simply a hard or raised form of b indicated by a squared off b without the extra strokes that it eventually gained. The use of musica ficta came much later in history, of course, and only once polyphony became common. (The only time it would have come up in chant was when una nota super la ... (one note above la in any hexachord) ... semper est canendem fa (was altered to be a halfstep above la, generally when it was the highest note in a phrase and the melody stayed in the original hexachord rather
Re: [Finale] very OT notation (burn before reading!)
On 1 Nov 2007 at 0:19, John Howell wrote: gamut This term comes from the note added to the Greek scale, Gamma Ut, which was below the A. That is, the Greek scale was a tetrachordal system starting on A. The G below was added later, and called Gamma Ut. I don't know how that got collapsed into gamut but that's the explanation I was given. This all predates Guido, of course. This all goes back to Boethius and his discourse on the monochord. Which leaves the matter of B and H (or more properly b and h). Round b and square b existed in music long before Guido. The so- called flat sign was really a b with rounded circle, while the natural sign was square b, with squared circle. That's all I had to say on your otherwise excellent summary (i.e., no corrections, just additions). Perhaps my main point is that a lot of what Guido systematized came from practice that had already been in place almost as long as any music notation had existed. -- 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
