On Feb 10, 2005, at 5:45 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I could also change the grammar without changing the word order. I
could invent some arbitrary, artificial grammar that uses all the same
English words but uses an Object-Verb-Subject order. In that
artificial grammar, "Man bites dog" would
On 10 Feb 2005 at 17:45, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2005, at 5:21 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > No, grammar *enables* meaning. The switch you are making is a switch
> > of meaning by changing the words. You've done nothing to change the
> > *grammar*,
>
> Okay. This may be a termin
On 10 Feb 2005, at 5:21 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
No, grammar *enables* meaning. The switch you are making is a switch
of meaning by changing the words. You've done nothing to change the
*grammar*,
Okay. This may be a terminology problem. To me (and to linguists),
"changing the grammar" means c
On 10 Feb 2005 at 5:22, Richard Yates wrote:
> > You seem to me to be arguing that acoustics are part of the musical
> > content of a work of music, where I'm saying that it is only the
> > mechanism by which the content is conveyed.
>
> Can to define this elusive content without reference to phy
On 10 Feb 2005 at 4:58, dhbailey wrote:
> Darcy James Argue wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > No, it absolutely does. Let me try one last time:
> >
> > "Dog bites man."
> >
> > "Man bites dog."
> >
> > What's the difference? Same three words. Different meaning. What
> > accounts for the difference?
>
On 10 Feb 2005 at 0:36, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2005, at 12:26 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > On 10 Feb 2005 at 0:09, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> >>
> >> No, it absolutely does. Let me try one last time:
> >>
> >> "Dog bites man."
> >>
> >> "Man bites dog."
> >>
> >> What's the dif
David W. Fenton wrote:
No one is a bigger fan of Mozart than I am. But I have always felt
that the Magic Flute is incoherent *as an opera* (or Singspiel,
technically speaking, I guess). If it did not have some of the most
glorious music ever written, it would be a failure. But so far as I
can t
At 11:06 AM -0500 2/10/05, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Feb 9, 2005, at 2:53 PM, John Howell wrote:
Bernouli's law, ...Same law that holds up both fixed-wing and
rotary-wing aircraft.
Actually, that can't be the case, though everybody thinks it is. If
Bernoulli's law were responsible for lift in airc
Regarding physics and music, can I walk out on the ice and suggest that a
distinction needs to be made between physics as a discipline of study, on
the one hand, and the term being used to refer to the actual forces, etc.,
that function in the universe? After parsing through these interesting
emai
We have the thought first, then we express it in a manner that we can
be reasonably sure our listener/reader can understand.
--
David H. Bailey
Actually, recent research suggests that we talk first, and find out
from that what we meant.
Daniel Dennett quotes I forget wh. famous novelist: "How c
Since he dangle his grammatical temporal dongle, I wonder if he'd
clarify
if he meant the fame from the late 18th century on, or the composer
from
the late 18th century on.
Dennis
Fame--or rather, reputation, wh. is what I was really talking about.
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home
On Feb 9, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Mark D Lew wrote:
I assume that by "age of 150" you mean 150 years after birth*. When I
wrote the first post I thought I had examples, but now that I do the
math, I find the ones I had in mind went out of fashion around age
75-100 and thus don't meet your test. I'..
On Feb 9, 2005, at 2:53 PM, John Howell wrote:
Bernouli's law, ...Same law that holds up both fixed-wing and
rotary-wing aircraft.
Actually, that can't be the case, though everybody thinks it is. If
Bernoulli's law were responsible for lift in aircraft, airplanes
wouldn't be able to fly upside-d
In all of these words about words, it may be that the hangup is the word
'significant'. Perhaps all he is saying is that grammar is not the meaning
and the words themselves are not the meaning. If I am on the right track
then he would also say that sound (and hence any aspect of physics) is not
the
And I very clearly wrote my reply before reading your second post, and I
very clearly disagree with both.
I agree with Salieri, who called it "grand opera," and it is one of my
favorites.
RBH
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 9 Feb 2005 at 11:04, Raymond Horton wrote:
In regards to _The Magic Flu
> > Grammar. Grammar controls meaning.
> >
>
> Actually, meaning controls grammar.
>
> We have the thought first, then we express it in a manner that we can be
> reasonably sure our listener/reader can understand.
Thoughts have grammar.
___
Fina
> You seem to me to be arguing that acoustics are part of the musical
> content of a work of music, where I'm saying that it is only the
> mechanism by which the content is conveyed.
Can to define this elusive content without reference to physics?
__
Darcy James Argue wrote:
[snip]
No, it absolutely does. Let me try one last time:
"Dog bites man."
"Man bites dog."
What's the difference? Same three words. Different meaning. What
accounts for the difference?
Grammar. Grammar controls meaning.
Actually, meaning controls grammar.
We have the
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 9 Feb 2005 at 6:40, dhbailey wrote:
A friend of mine who is a professional violinist and violin teacher
has explained to me the importance of physical memory for the solo
violinist in regard to intonation as opposed to "having a good ear."
The point is that hitting tho
On 10 Feb 2005, at 12:26 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 10 Feb 2005 at 0:09, Darcy James Argue wrote:
No, it absolutely does. Let me try one last time:
"Dog bites man."
"Man bites dog."
What's the difference? Same three words. Different meaning. What
accounts for the difference?
The fact that yo
Darcy James Argue / 05.2.10 / 00:09 AM wrote:
>No, it absolutely does. Let me try one last time:
>
>"Dog bites man."
>
>"Man bites dog."
>
>What's the difference? Same three words. Different meaning. What
>accounts for the difference?
>
>Grammar. Grammar controls meaning.
Or may be the gra
On 9 Feb 2005 at 21:14, Richard Yates wrote:
> > No, I'm not using any special meaning.
> >
> > Asterisks are not quotation marks.
>
> I did not say or infer that they were. You use them for emphasis as if
> saying the same thing louder makes it clearer.
>
> Which of the dictionary meanings that
On 9 Feb 2005 at 21:11, Richard Yates wrote:
> > > > That doesn't mean grammar has any significance to the meaning of
> > > > any particular utterance (though it certainly *could*).
> > >
> > > If you really believe this then I can only assume that you have a
> > > rather nonstandard definition of
On 10 Feb 2005 at 0:09, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2005, at 12:04 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > On 9 Feb 2005 at 23:58, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> >
> >> On 09 Feb 2005, at 10:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >>
> >>> Physics has no necessary *musical* significance, just has grammar
>
> No, I'm not using any special meaning.
>
> Asterisks are not quotation marks.
I did not say or infer that they were. You use them for emphasis as if
saying the same thing louder makes it clearer.
Which of the dictionary meanings that I quoted applies to your use of the
term 'musical' in which y
> > > That doesn't mean grammar has any significance to the meaning of any
> > > particular utterance (though it certainly *could*).
> >
> > If you really believe this then I can only assume that you have a
> > rather nonstandard definition of 'grammar' in mind. Can you write some
> > examples of u
On 10 Feb 2005, at 12:04 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 9 Feb 2005 at 23:58, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 09 Feb 2005, at 10:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Physics has no necessary *musical* significance, just has grammar
has no signficance in the *meaning* of any particular speech or
written utteranc
On 9 Feb 2005 at 23:58, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> On 09 Feb 2005, at 10:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > Physics has no necessary *musical* significance, just has grammar
> > has no signficance in the *meaning* of any particular speech or
> > written utterance.
>
> This is so patently, obvio
On 09 Feb 2005, at 10:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Physics has no necessary *musical* significance, just has grammar has
no signficance in the *meaning* of any particular speech or written
utterance.
This is so patently, obviously, demonstrably false that if you continue
to assert it, I don't thi
On 9 Feb 2005 at 19:37, Richard Yates wrote:
> > It seems to me that you are willfully re-reading everything I've
> > written -- I'm talking about *musical* significance, and always have
> > been, and quite clearly.
>
> There are those asterisks again! . . .
Asterisks are not equal to quotation
On 9 Feb 2005 at 19:28, Richard Yates wrote:
> > That doesn't mean grammar has any significance to the meaning of any
> > particular utterance (though it certainly *could*).
>
> If you really believe this then I can only assume that you have a
> rather nonstandard definition of 'grammar' in mind.
On 9 Feb 2005 at 14:53, John Howell wrote:
> At 10:33 AM -0500 2/9/05, dhbailey wrote:
> >
> >Could you please explain what aspects of physics are in my conscious
> >thought while I'm playing the trumpet?
> >
> >Physics is the science which defines and describes in precise detail
> >the actions an
On 9 Feb 2005 at 11:19, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
> At 11:04 AM 2/9/05 -0500, Raymond Horton wrote:
> >(And if everyone ignores this post like they did my one about the
> >overtone series and the pentatonic scale, then I will delete all of
> >yours, too. Hmmph!)
>
> Hey, I'm not ignoring it! I
On 9 Feb 2005 at 11:04, Raymond Horton wrote:
> In regards to _The Magic Flute_, the background info is interesting,
> but not necessary to enjoying the opera. The opera is, start to
> finish, some of the most divinely inspired music ever penned by a
> human being, regardless of the story it is h
On 9 Feb 2005 at 6:48, Richard Yates wrote:
> > I don't think anybody has said physics has no significance, just
> > that it is not part of people's conscious thought processes while
> > making music or playing pool.
>
> My part of this thread has been to respond to the post that said:
> "Physics
On 9 Feb 2005 at 5:19, Richard Yates wrote:
> > >>Do you consciously think about grammar when you speak?
> > >>Is grammar significant to communication?
> > >>- Darcy
>
> > Can someone communicate effectively without having consciously
> > learned the rules of grammar specifically (as opposed to p
> It seems to me that you are willfully re-reading everything I've
> written -- I'm talking about *musical* significance, and always have
> been, and quite clearly.
There are those asterisks again! If you have been using the word 'musical'
in some narrow or obscure way, then it is incumbent on you
On 9 Feb 2005 at 6:40, dhbailey wrote:
> Darcy James Argue wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > Both a human and a pool-playing robot (like, say, Deep Green --
> > http://www.ece.queensu.ca/hpages/faculty/greenspan/) have to solve
> > exactly the same problem, which happens to be a problem of applied
> > p
On 9 Feb 2005 at 6:33, dhbailey wrote:
> Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 2005, at 7:52 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
> >> I just pointed
> >> out that if the music is incomprehensible without reference to
> >> outside information that is not musical in nature, then it's not
> >> very
> That doesn't mean grammar has any significance to the meaning of any
> particular utterance (though it certainly *could*).
If you really believe this then I can only assume that you have a rather
nonstandard definition of 'grammar' in mind. Can you write some examples of
utterances in which you
On 8 Feb 2005 at 22:07, Richard Yates wrote:
> > Do you consciously think about grammar when you speak?
> > Is grammar significant to communication?
> > - Darcy
>
> Oooh, good one!
No, it's the same question as before, and the answer is that it is
significant to *enabling* it, but does not nece
On 9 Feb 2005 at 0:27, Darcy James Argue wrote:
>
> On 08 Feb 2005, at 7:30 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > On 8 Feb 2005 at 1:31, Darcy James Argue wrote:
>
> >> Please explain how you would build a pool-playing robot without
> >> including some sort of physics module in the AI.
> >
> > A hum
On 8 Feb 2005 at 20:37, Richard Yates wrote:
[quoting me replying to himself:]
> > > When I am practicing I am consciously applying principles and
> > > solving problems in physics such as conservation of momentum,
> > > distribution of forces, and lengths and angles of of compund
> > > levers. Kn
> Bernouli's law, actually, making the lips buzz like any other double
> (or single) reeds. Same law that holds up both fixed-wing and
> rotary-wing aircraft. > John
I cannot believe that someone else also mentioned Bernoulli! By the way, I
heard somewhere recently that the relative force of Ber
> Could you please explain what aspects of physics are in my conscious
> thought while I'm playing the trumpet?
You are calculating the air pressures necessary using Bernoulli's Principle
and the modulus of elasticity of skin as it relates to the natural
vibrational frequency of the air column fro
On Feb 9, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Since he dangle his grammatical temporal dongle, I wonder if he'd
clarify
if he meant the fame from the late 18th century on, or the composer
from
the late 18th century on.
Ah, now I see the confusion. I assumed he meant fame from the late
At 03:01 PM 2/9/05 -0800, Mark D Lew wrote:
>How do you figure only "a few decades"? As I understand it, he is
>saying:
>- Any composer born in 1630 who was considered great in 1780 maintained
>his reputation 1780-2005.
[...]
He said:
>From the late 18th c. on (that is, since the
>time when t
On Feb 9, 2005, at 1:01 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:
For composers of "age of 150", the limiting date is 1855. So your
description actually focuses on a few decades of composition, and on
those composers' current reputation. It neither proves nor
demonstrates anything.
How do you figure only "a few
On Feb 9, 2005, at 12:02 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
First of all, Janacek is not "an opera composer"--he wrote important
music in a wide variety of genres, and even were all his operas to be
forgotten the remaining body of work would be more than sufficient to
maintain his standing as a major com
At 03:48 PM 2/9/05 -0500, Christopher Smith wrote:
>
>On Wednesday, February 9, 2005, at 03:02 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
>> I cannot think of a single composer, in any genre, who having been
>> considered great at the age of 150, came to be considered
>> insignificant, or even minor, at any late
Christopher Smith wrote:
On Wednesday, February 9, 2005, at 03:02 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
I cannot think of a single composer, in any genre, who having been
considered great at the age of 150, came to be considered
insignificant, or even minor, at any later time.
Composers, living or dead, d
On Wednesday, February 9, 2005, at 03:02 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
I cannot think of a single composer, in any genre, who having been
considered great at the age of 150, came to be considered
insignificant, or even minor, at any later time.
Composers, living or dead, do tend to go out of fashio
>What modern composer IS known outside of academic circles?
Steve Reich, John Adams, and, in particular, Phillip Glass.
Stu
To these I would add Crumb, Ligeti, and Riley, at the very least.
I would suggest further that any composer whose work has been
featured on a national broadcast--especiall
Andrew suggested that history's verdict on Janacek is "long since"
in. I think it's way too soon to say that. I can think of a dozen
opera composers who were considered great 75 years after their death
but were discarded by history 50 years later. (Plus a few more who
were great for a cent
At 10:33 AM -0500 2/9/05, dhbailey wrote:
Could you please explain what aspects of physics are in my conscious
thought while I'm playing the trumpet?
Physics is the science which defines and describes in precise detail
the actions and interactions. I don't concede that we're discussing
physics
On 09 Feb 2005, at 7:07 AM, dhbailey wrote:
Richard Yates wrote:
Do you consciously think about grammar when you speak?
Is grammar significant to communication?
- Darcy
Oooh, good one!
Can someone communicate effectively without having consciously learned
the rules of grammar specifically (as oppo
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Hey, I'm not ignoring it! I was just trying to resist the urge to make my
no-doubt-anticipated musico-politically incorrect two-finger mouth salute
over Mozart's incessantly repetitive noodling.
I feel for you, too, Dennis.
___
At 11:04 AM 2/9/05 -0500, Raymond Horton wrote:
>(And if everyone ignores this post like they did my one about the
>overtone series and the pentatonic scale, then I will delete all of
>yours, too. Hmmph!)
Hey, I'm not ignoring it! I was just trying to resist the urge to make my
no-doubt-anticip
I have a good perspective on questions such as these, playing music of
all kinds, and spending a fair amount of my career in opera and ballet
pits. Sometimes I have almost no knowledge of the story going on
onstage (I can almost never see anything) so I experience the music
only. Sometimes I
Richard Yates wrote:
I don't think anybody has said physics has no significance, just that it
is not part of people's conscious thought processes while making music
or playing pool.
My part of this thread has been to respond to the post that said: "Physics
is involved, but not at any conscious lev
With luck history will never have the final say on anything we do!
Otherwise we are toast. Of course Janacek is great --just listen to
him. What's not great about it? That he was unknown in his time (I'd
kill for a career as unknown as this) sez nothing about his artistic
merit -- it is pol
> I don't think anybody has said physics has no significance, just that it
> is not part of people's conscious thought processes while making music
> or playing pool.
My part of this thread has been to respond to the post that said: "Physics
is involved, but not at any conscious level,
and not at
Richard Yates wrote:
Do you consciously think about grammar when you speak?
Is grammar significant to communication?
- Darcy
Can someone communicate effectively without having consciously learned
the rules of grammar specifically (as opposed to picking up general
concepts of communication)? Certa
> >>Do you consciously think about grammar when you speak?
> >>Is grammar significant to communication?
> >>- Darcy
> Can someone communicate effectively without having consciously learned
> the rules of grammar specifically (as opposed to picking up general
> concepts of communication)? Certainl
Richard Yates wrote:
Do you consciously think about grammar when you speak?
Is grammar significant to communication?
- Darcy
Oooh, good one!
Can someone communicate effectively without having consciously learned
the rules of grammar specifically (as opposed to picking up general
concepts of comm
Richard Yates wrote:
Do you consciously think about grammar when you speak?
Is grammar significant to communication?
- Darcy
Oooh, good one!
Can someone communicate effectively without having consciously learned
the rules of grammar specifically (as opposed to picking up general
concepts of comm
Darcy James Argue wrote:
[snip]
Both a human and a pool-playing robot (like, say, Deep Green --
http://www.ece.queensu.ca/hpages/faculty/greenspan/) have to solve
exactly the same problem, which happens to be a problem of applied physics.
So one solves it with neurons and one solves it with sili
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 8 Feb 2005 at 17:56, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Feb 8, 2005, at 4:52 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
. . . Is it important to know
that _The Magic Flute_ is full of Masonic symbolism? . . .
Perhaps, because otherwise, it's fairly incoherent. I would say that
proves that it's not a
Mark D Lew wrote:
On Feb 8, 2005, at 4:52 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
. . . Is it important to know
that _The Magic Flute_ is full of Masonic symbolism? . . .
Perhaps, because otherwise, it's fairly incoherent. I would say that
proves that it's not a very good opera.
The fact that Flute has remain
Christopher Smith wrote:
On Feb 8, 2005, at 7:52 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I just pointed
out that if the music is incomprehensible without reference to
outside information that is not musical in nature, then it's not very
good music.
Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree there. I don'
> Do you consciously think about grammar when you speak?
> Is grammar significant to communication?
> - Darcy
Oooh, good one!
Richard
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
On 08 Feb 2005, at 7:30 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 8 Feb 2005 at 1:31, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Please explain how you would build a pool-playing robot without
including some sort of physics module in the AI.
A human pool player is not a pool-playing robot.
And that's the whole point.
Both a hu
> > > Human beings do not think of equations and physics when they move --
> > > they just move. Physics is involved, but not at any conscious level,
> > > and not at any significant level.
> >
> > On the contrary, the preparation for the precise movements in
> > performing music involves detailed
On 8 Feb 2005 at 18:18, Richard Yates wrote:
> > Human beings do not think of equations and physics when they move --
> > they just move. Physics is involved, but not at any conscious level,
> > and not at any significant level.
>
> On the contrary, the preparation for the precise movements in
>
On 8 Feb 2005 at 21:31, John Howell wrote:
> At 9:05 PM -0500 2/8/05, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >No one is a bigger fan of Mozart than I am. But I have always felt
> >that the Magic Flute is incoherent *as an opera* (or Singspiel,
> >technically speaking, I guess). If it did not have some of the mo
> Human beings do not think of equations and physics when they move --
> they just move. Physics is involved, but not at any conscious level,
> and not at any significant level.
On the contrary, the preparation for the precise movements in performing
music involves detailed conscious thought abou
At 9:05 PM -0500 2/8/05, David W. Fenton wrote:
No one is a bigger fan of Mozart than I am. But I have always felt
that the Magic Flute is incoherent *as an opera* (or Singspiel,
technically speaking, I guess). If it did not have some of the most
glorious music ever written, it would be a failure.
On Feb 8, 2005, at 3:52 PM, dhbailey wrote:
I don't think it has anything to do with faith -- history will be the
final arbiter, regardless of how great we currently may think any
composer (currently living or long dead) might be.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. When I said "the permanence of history's
On 8 Feb 2005 at 17:56, Mark D Lew wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2005, at 4:52 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> >> . . . Is it important to know
> >> that _The Magic Flute_ is full of Masonic symbolism? . . .
> >
> > Perhaps, because otherwise, it's fairly incoherent. I would say that
> > proves that it's not
> As a
> trained (but not completed) musicologist, I would suggest two names
> that will be of great interest to scholars in 200 years because their
> music has touched so many people: Paul McCartney (along with
> whatsizname), whose "throwaway" songs still won't go away 40 years
> later, and John
On Feb 8, 2005, at 4:52 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
. . . Is it important to know
that _The Magic Flute_ is full of Masonic symbolism? . . .
Perhaps, because otherwise, it's fairly incoherent. I would say that
proves that it's not a very good opera.
The fact that Flute has remained popular for centu
> >What modern composer IS known outside of academic circles?
>
> Steve Reich, John Adams, and, in particular, Phillip Glass.
"Who?", "Huh?" and "Oh yeah, the guy who wrote the score for Koyaaniskatsi".
Richard Yates
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shs
On Feb 8, 2005, at 7:52 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I just pointed
out that if the music is incomprehensible without reference to
outside information that is not musical in nature, then it's not very
good music.
Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree there. I don't know of
very much art t
On 8 Feb 2005 at 13:06, Andrew Stiller wrote:
> >And to get the point of the music, do you need to know this about the
> >origins of the idea?
> >
> >If not, then it's not very important musically, in my opinion.
> >
> >If so, then it's probably not very good music to begin with.
> >
> >--
> David
On 8 Feb 2005 at 1:31, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> On 07 Feb 2005, at 8:40 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> >> You don't think basketball commentators (and coaches, and players)
> >> talk about angle, rebounds, arcs, etc?
> >
> > That's not physics, except using a rather debased definition of it
> >
Mark D Lew wrote:
[answering Andrew Stiller]
And BTW, it's not up to you to decide whether J's music is very good
or not. On that point, the verdict of history is in, long since.
Umm, what IS history's verdict on Janacek's music? I really like it,
but I'm not sure that counts for much. 8-)
I'm
>
> [answering Andrew Stiller]
>
> >> And BTW, it's not up to you to decide whether J's music is very good
> >> or not. On that point, the verdict of history is in, long since.
> >
> > Umm, what IS history's verdict on Janacek's music? I really like it,
> > but I'm not sure that counts for much. 8
[answering Andrew Stiller]
And BTW, it's not up to you to decide whether J's music is very good
or not. On that point, the verdict of history is in, long since.
Umm, what IS history's verdict on Janacek's music? I really like it,
but I'm not sure that counts for much. 8-)
I'm not sure I share And
On Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 02:24 PM, Stu McIntire wrote:
What modern composer IS known outside of academic circles?
Steve Reich, John Adams, and, in particular, Phillip Glass.
Thank you, at least two of those will do nicely for illustrative
purposes. Reich and Glass (and perhaps Adams, too,
On Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 01:06 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
And BTW, it's not up to you to decide whether J's music is very good
or not. On that point, the verdict of history is in, long since.
Umm, what IS history's verdict on Janacek's music? I really like it,
but I'm not sure that count
>What modern composer IS known outside of academic circles?
Steve Reich, John Adams, and, in particular, Phillip Glass.
Stu
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
At 4:22 PM -0500 2/7/05, David W. Fenton wrote:
The carpenter's tools are not the point of his work.
Unless, of course, you play that famous pre-Theramin instrument, the saw.
John
--
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax
And to get the point of the music, do you need to know this about the
origins of the idea?
If not, then it's not very important musically, in my opinion.
If so, then it's probably not very good music to begin with.
--
David W. Fenton
Depends what you consider important to know about different
comp
At 2:31 PM -0500 2/7/05, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Monday, February 7, 2005, at 12:34 PM, Phil Daley wrote:
The first question: "Was this (Cage's) music as successful
(moving, exciting, attractive) as other musics?"
I don't see how anyone can argue a yes answer to this question.
The "scient
At 4:31 PM -0500 2/6/05, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Why was musical education considered (apparently) so important
for the girls and young women who studied with Vivaldi at the
Ospedali? One presumes that since orphans don't have dowries, they
were being prepared for employment. Was music a positi
On 07 Feb 2005, at 8:40 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
You don't think basketball commentators (and coaches, and players)
talk about angle, rebounds, arcs, etc?
That's not physics, except using a rather debased definition of it
that includes just about anything involving motion.
David, that's just abou
On 7 Feb 2005 at 17:08, Andrew Stiller wrote:
> > > Beyond that, there is the less measurable by very important
> > > influence
> >> of acoustic and music-psychological theories upon compositional
> >> styles, going back at least to Berlioz.
> >
> >I would be interested to see specific example
On 7 Feb 2005 at 17:04, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> On 07 Feb 2005, at 4:17 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > On 6 Feb 2005 at 23:39, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> >> That's like saying "There is nothing important in basketball that
> >> comes from physics."
> >>
> >> On the one hand, Lebron Lames doe
Sorry All--
Didn't mean for this to go to the list...
On 2/7/05 3:56 PM, "Allen Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> saith:
> David--
>
> You went to Oberlin? I went to school right down the road in Ashland. When
> were you there?
>
>
> On 2/7/05 3:31 PM, "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> saith:
On 07 Feb 2005, at 4:17 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 6 Feb 2005 at 23:39, Darcy James Argue wrote:
That's like saying "There is nothing important in basketball that
comes from physics."
On the one hand, Lebron Lames doesn't actually need to know the first
thing about Isaac Newton or his theories i
1 - 100 of 303 matches
Mail list logo
