On 02.06.2006 Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
David Fenton wrote:
Well, why is it that sometime between 1770 and 1790, all composers
started becoming substantially more specific in notating dynamics and
articulations than they were before? Does the absence of the explicit
performance indications mean
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip]
Perhaps on the specific point of minuet da capos this interpretation
is wrong, but it is certainly plausible that the specificity of
asking for no repeats does not in any way prove that the standard
practice was to play the da capo repeats.
Indeed, such
On 01.06.2006 David W. Fenton wrote:
Given the lack of any markings at all, the absence of a marking
saying to not take the repeats doesn't surprise me at all. If only we
had such information about how musicians of the time actually
performed the music!
There are marked parts. I agree that
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 31.05.2006 Andrew Stiller wrote:
It seems to me that until about 1800 or a little later repeats were
_normally_ done in the Da Capo However, I have yet to see a
performing part from that period where anyone made a note of not
playing repeats in the Da Capo.
I
On 01.06.2006 dhbailey wrote:
Unless there was no confusion because the practice of omitting the repeats on
the D.C. was so widely known that everybody did it and nobody ever got
confused. :-)
But then why did Boccherini, and later Beethoven, specifically indicate
senza repetitione? This
David Bailey wrote:
And this discussion is great proof that in 200 years, when people dig
out the music of the Duke Ellington or Stan Kenton or Count Basie
orchestras, there will be a whole PhD dissertation war on whether the
8ths should be swung or straight, and what degree of swing they
Scot Hanna-Weir wrote:
David Bailey wrote:
And this discussion is great proof that in 200 years, when people dig
out the music of the Duke Ellington or Stan Kenton or Count Basie
orchestras, there will be a whole PhD dissertation war on whether the
8ths should be swung or straight, and what
On 1 Jun 2006 at 14:53, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
But then why did Boccherini, and later Beethoven, specifically
indicate senza repetitione? This is precisely the question, and we
are now turning around in circles.
Well, why is it that sometime between 1770 and 1790, all composers
started
David Fenton wrote:
Well, why is it that sometime between 1770 and 1790, all composersstarted becoming substantially more specific in notating dynamics andarticulations than they were before? Does the absence of the explicit
performance indications mean that they played the music straight,with no
At 5:24 PM -0400 6/1/06, David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, why is it that sometime between 1770 and 1790, all composers
started becoming substantially more specific in notating dynamics and
articulations than they were before? [snip]
All we know is that for some reason, it began to be specified. My
On 1 Jun 2006 at 18:25, John Howell wrote:
At 5:24 PM -0400 6/1/06, David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, why is it that sometime between 1770 and 1790, all composers
started becoming substantially more specific in notating dynamics and
articulations than they were before? [snip]
All we know is
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
David Fention writes:
Hogwood has replaced one categorical tradition with another one.
No, not really. I think Christopher Hogwood just believes in observing
da capo marks that's in the music.
What you see is what you get. No more, no less. At least you can say
he's
At 5/30/2006 10:47 PM, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
No, not really. I think Christopher Hogwood just believes in observing da
capo marks that's in the music.
Which should be:
No, not really. I think Christopher Hogwood just believes in observing da
capo marks that are in the music.
Phil
dhbailey writes:
How about the wrong notes which were written into the scores or parts?Are they to be slavishly followed, too?
Sure, if you want, go ahead.
Kim Patrick Clow
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
Which should be: eat shit and di
On 5/31/06, Phil Daley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 5/30/2006 10:47 PM, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:No, not really. I think Christopher Hogwood just believes in observingda
capo marks that's in the music.Which should be:No, not really. I think Christopher Hogwood just
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
dhbailey writes:
How about the wrong notes which were written into the scores or parts?
Are they to be slavishly followed, too?
Sure, if you want, go ahead.
Well, if the repeats are to be followed because they're there, what does
if you want have
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
Which should be: eat shit and di
Nice -- that certainly furthers the discussion. :-)
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I certainly don't look down on others for their adherence to or straying from the written text, as long as it works musically and communicates what I feel the composers' intentions really were.I apologize if I have missed an earlier posting with this
I haven't followed this much, so forgive me if I am only stating old news.
My own take on the matter is this: It seems to me that until about 1800
or a little later repeats were _normally_ done in the Da Capo, though I
am sure that 18th century performers were liberal about these kinds of
Title: Re: [Finale] Layout for ABA form
100% agreement is tough to muster on just about anything around this list. ;-)
on 5/31/06 9:40 AM, Erica Buxbaum at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am praying that all of my subjects and verbs are in agreement, even if my opinions
On 31.05.2006 Erica Buxbaum wrote:
There actually are contemporary sources that say quite clearly that repeats are
to be observed in da capos.
Not disagreeing, but this statement in itself does pose new questions:
Why was it necessary for anyone to confirm this if there wasn't any
question
This is from Performance Practices in Classic Piano Music: Their Principles and Applicationsby Sandra P. Rosenblum, Indiana University Press, 1988, p. 73:"Recent research by Max Rudolf indicates that the omission of the repeats within the da capo of a Classic minuet or scherzo lacks any
Johannes Gebauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On 31.05.2006 Erica Buxbaum wrote: There actually are contemporary sources that say quite clearly that repeats are to be observed in da capos.Not disagreeing, but this statement in itself does pose new questions: Why was it necessary for anyone to
On May 31, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
It seems to me that until about 1800 or a little later repeats were
_normally_ done in the Da Capo However, I have yet to see a
performing part from that period where anyone made a note of not
playing repeats in the Da Capo.
I cannot
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 31.05.2006 Erica Buxbaum wrote:
There actually are contemporary sources that say quite clearly that
repeats are to be observed in da capos.
Not disagreeing, but this statement in itself does pose new questions:
Why was it necessary for anyone to confirm this if
David H. Bailey wrote:
If all the repeats were always taken, why even mention it?Obviously someone wasn't taking all the repeats.
Instructional manuals?
Treatises on performance styles of the period?
Diaries or letters that review a performance?
There are many possible explanations why it
At 4:31 PM -0400 5/30/06, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
There's really only two types of music: good and bad. ~ Rossini
There's no bad music. Except Hawaiian ~ Pete Barbudi.
--
John Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax
On 31.05.2006 Andrew Stiller wrote:
It seems to me that until about 1800 or a little later repeats were _normally_
done in the Da Capo However, I have yet to see a performing part from that
period where anyone made a note of not playing repeats in the Da Capo.
I cannot give an exact
On 31.05.2006 Erica Buxbaum wrote:
Türk added explicit direction in the second edition of his Klavierschule:
Erica
Thanks for the quote. I must admit that I doubt Türk's authority in some
cases, but in this particular case I am sure it is relevant.
Johannes
--
On 31.05.2006 Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
Instructional manuals?
Treatises on performance styles of the period?
Diaries or letters that review a performance?
There are many possible explanations why it would be discussed in sources.
No, Kim, I think you are missing the point here. If repeats
On 31 May 2006 at 7:40, Erica Buxbaum wrote:
That said: Christopher Hogwood and many other performers who are
attempting to discover what the composers' intention really were
rely on information from contemporary sources regarding as many
aspects of performance as are available, among
On 30 May 2006 at 22:47, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
David Fention writes:
Hogwood has replaced one categorical tradition with another one.
No, not really. . . .
Actually, you're right in pointing out that my statement is
incorrect. I should have written:
Hogwood has replaced a flexible,
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
If repeats were always done, than why even mention that they are done in Da Capos.With the same reasoning one would then expect an instruction to do repeats- in slow movements- in Menuets- in sonatas
I don't know honestly. I do know that Christopher Hogwood insists on
On 1 Jun 2006 at 0:15, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I'd like to see an 18th century handwritten marking in a performing
part, where a performer has made a decision to not play the repeat,
and marked such in the part. This would indicate that there was a
liberality. If such markings do not exist I
John Howell wrote:
At 4:31 PM -0400 5/30/06, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
There's really only two types of music: good and bad. ~ Rossini
There's no bad music. Except Hawaiian ~ Pete Barbudi.
This from a guy who played the BROOM?
cd
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dershem/#
Christopher Smith wrote:
On May 29, 2006, at 6:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
In short, there is no hard and fast rule about whether repeats are
obligatory just because they are found in the score, even if it's the
composer's autograph.
Wow. Really? I would have thought that something like
dc wrote:
David W. Fenton écrit:
The one thing that would be lost would be the analytical value of
the older notation, which tells you this is exactly the same music
that you're playing both times whereas writing it out does not tell
you that immediately.
The second thing that would be lost
On May 30, 2006, at 6:10 AM, dhbailey wrote:
Personally, I think the composers would laugh over our constant
discussions of their intentions with regards to repeats -- I bet they
were much like us, using the same music in any number of different
situations, some of which would require
Mr. Hogwood has a lot more cache with me.
That's cachet.
Cache (pron. cash) means a small, hidden supply of something.
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
On 30 May 2006 at 7:08, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
David Fenton wrote:
Repeats were obligatory in the repertory Christopher Hogwood plays
*only* if you *vary* the repeat in some way. If you don't have
anything different to say in the repeat, then you're under no
obligation to take it.
Andrew Stiller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's cachet.Cache (pron. cash) means a small, hidden supply of something.
Damn autofill
-- Kim Patrick ClowThere's really only two types of music: good and bad. ~ Rossini
___
Finale mailing list
In a message dated 30/05/2006 21:32:29 GMT Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Damn autofill
Isn't that love of motor cars?
Cheers,
Lawrence
"þaes
ofereode - þisses swa maeg"http://lawrenceyates.co.ukDulcian
Wind Quintet: http://dulcianwind.co.uk
On May 30, 2006, at 4:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 30/05/2006 21:32:29 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Damn autofill Isn't that love of motor cars?
Heh, I think autophilia is love of... wait a minute, this is a family list!
(oops!)
8-)
Christopher
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Damn autofill
Isn't that love of motor cars?
Cheers,
Lawrence
Only in the U.K. ;)Cheerio !Kim
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Andrew Stiller wrote:
Mr. Hogwood has a lot more cache with me.
That's cachet.
Cache (pron. cash) means a small, hidden supply of something.
Hmmm... perhaps Hogwood has left a small hidden supply of something with
him?
cd
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dershem/#
David Fention writes:Hogwood has replaced one categorical tradition with another one.
No, not really. I thinkChristopher Hogwoodjustbelieves in observing da capo marks that's in the music.
What you see is what you get. No more, no less. At least you can say he's taking the music at it's face
John Howell / 2006/05/28 / 05:33 PM wrote:
At 3:55 PM -0400 5/28/06, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I should also have mentioned the soloist's part should *never*
include a page turn in mid-solo. This seems glaringly obvious, but
you wouldn't believe how often composers/arrangers who copy their
own
I should also have mentioned the soloist's part should *never*
include a page turn in mid-solo. This seems glaringly obvious, but
you wouldn't believe how often composers/arrangers who copy their
own parts make this mistake.
The above can become a challenge. My wonderful hand written
There is a situation where I've felt compelled to use a repeat in spite of
the circumstances you mention. It's when I've been hired to orchestrate and
record a choral piece that is already in print or well on its way. For the
sake of future live performances (the publisher offers the score and
John Howell wrote:
At 10:03 AM -0700 5/28/06, Richard Yates wrote:
There are many assumptions being made about the situation in which the
score
would be used. I absolutely believe that in the one you, and others, have
assumed (sight-reading with a group of players) that you are correct.
Hey, I hear you, man!
I am dealing with your exact situation right now, and I have used a
number of workarounds, including the alternate numbering system you
describe.
In one case, I wrote a double staff part for the repeated section,
indicating to play the top staff 1st time and the bottom
On 28 May 2006 at 18:16, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
Richard Smith wrote:
Current practice is often stuck in the habits of previous centuries
and
does not reflect the
capabilities of our software. Finale or Sibelius (even most of the
toy notation programs) eliminate the need for
On 28 May 2006 at 15:39, Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 01:34 PM 5/28/2006, dhbailey wrote:
Your third example is how it is done in all the engraved music I've
ever seen.
Really? David, I think you're misunderstanding the intent. #3 looks
like AABA with a missing repeat sign. That is play A
On May 29, 2006, at 6:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
In short, there is no hard and fast rule about whether repeats are
obligatory just because they are found in the score, even if it's the
composer's autograph.
Wow. Really? I would have thought that something like a repeat in the
On 29 May 2006 at 19:44, Christopher Smith wrote:
On May 29, 2006, at 6:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
In short, there is no hard and fast rule about whether repeats are
obligatory just because they are found in the score, even if it's
the composer's autograph.
Wow. Really? I would
Thanks, Don.
One of my jobs is to play in a large church orchestra. We have, in
fact, played quite a few of your fine arrangements.
As I'm sure you know, it is common in church music for orchestral parts
not to have the same rehearsal numbers or same repeat layout as the
choral part which
At 7:44 PM -0400 5/29/06, Christopher Smith wrote:
On May 29, 2006, at 6:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
In short, there is no hard and fast rule about whether repeats are
obligatory just because they are found in the score, even if it's the
composer's autograph.
Wow. Really? I would have
Richard Yates wrote:
At 10:01 PM 5/27/2006, Richard Yates wrote:
have used this layout scheme since it seemed logical and compact, but
realized that I may have just made it up.
Yes, I think you made it up. It looks awfully confusing to me, and
probably impossible to sight read.
Aaron.
How
At 10:01 PM 5/27/2006, Richard Yates wrote:
I have used this layout scheme since it seemed logical and compact,
but
realized that I may have just made it up.
Yes, I think you made it up. It looks awfully confusing to me, and
probably impossible to sight read.
Aaron.
How is it
Richard Yates / 2006/05/28 / 09:05 AM wrote:
I understand that if the situation were someone, or a band, sightreading
along for the first time in performance and coming across this unexpectedly
it would likely trip them up, but that circumstance would never occur with
this music.
In my opinion,
On May 28, 2006, at 9:05 AM, Richard Yates wrote:
You almost have it correct. You shouldn't reverse the 2nd and 1st
endings ever, in my opinion.
But you can make the first ending be one measure, then have 1st ending
and 2nd ending but without a repeat sign in the 1st ending. People
would
At 6:05 AM -0700 5/28/06, Richard Yates wrote:
Two replies said that the top example was 'confusing'. Could someone say
what is confusing about it? Aside from it being unusual, after looking at it
is there any chance of someone actually misunderstanding the intent?
Yes, absolutely!! If I
On May 28, 2006, at 9:05 AM, Richard Yates wrote:
http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/ABA.gif ?
The second example is by far the best way, IMO.
The third example has been used before (I have seen it in Strauss
waltzes and polkas in orchestra), but without the final barline at the
second
At 6:05 AM -0700 5/28/06, Richard Yates wrote:
Two replies said that the top example was 'confusing'. Could someone say
what is confusing about it? Aside from it being unusual, after looking at it
is there any chance of someone actually misunderstanding the intent?
Yes, absolutely!! If I
Two replies said that the top example was 'confusing'. Could someone say
what is confusing about it? Aside from it being unusual, after looking at
it
is there any chance of someone actually misunderstanding the intent?
Yes, absolutely!! If I came across it I would ASSUME that the
reversal
Richard Yates wrote:
At 10:01 PM 5/27/2006, Richard Yates wrote:
I have used this layout scheme since it seemed logical and compact,
but
realized that I may have just made it up.
Yes, I think you made it up. It looks awfully confusing to me, and
probably impossible to sight read.
Aaron.
I understand the difference between a shorthand version to be read by
one person - learning a piece, and ensemble parts, so I have some
sympathy for Richard's question. Still, to paraphrase a familiar
saying, When in doubt, write it out! Personally, as a reader, I
dislike backtracking
Le 06-05-28 à 13:03, Richard Yates a écrit :
Where do you see defensiveness or (most puzzling) attack? I think
you may be
reading a reaction into my response that is not there. I really did
want to
know if and how the intent could be genuinely misunderstood. No one
has said
that they did
If I may be permitted to yank this thread in another direction, I am
convinced that in many (certainly not all) cases, the use of repeats,
endings, DS, al Coda, al Fine, ect. is obsolete. Current practice is
often stuck in the habits of previous centuries and does not reflect the
capabilities
On 28 May 2006 at 13:41, Richard Smith wrote:
If I may be permitted to yank this thread in another direction, I am
convinced that in many (certainly not all) cases, the use of repeats,
endings, DS, al Coda, al Fine, ect. is obsolete. Current practice is
often stuck in the habits of previous
Hi Richard,
read Christopher response to your question again. It is as clear as I
could describe it myself in English. You seem to have convinced
yourself with that way of writing it, and there is nothing we can do
to make you change your mind I guess.
I am sincerely puzzled that anyone thinks I
Hey Carl,
Page turns aren't a problem. Only *bad* page turns are a problem.
However, most jazz charts have terrible page turns. In my own band, I
use booklets (made with VPC tape) with proper page turns: i.e., break
only at multimeasure rests, on every odd-numbered page. There is no
Hi Darcey;
I go to the extreme and try to make a page turn on page one. Every so
often you have a crowded bandstand. I agree with all of you comments
about page turns. For me, it has become a game.
Bass parts can be done with chords that use open strings or else in
passages where the bass
At 01:34 PM 5/28/2006, dhbailey wrote:
Your third example is how it is done in all the engraved music I've ever
seen.
Really? David, I think you're misunderstanding the intent. #3 looks
like AABA with a missing repeat sign. That is play A through the
first ending, repeat A, take second ending,
Hi Bob,
Yes, as I said, I use VPC-taped booklets, which require a valid turn
on page one. (Except that occasionally on very busy charts, this
isn't possible, I need a fold-out page.)
I should also have mentioned the soloist's part should *never*
include a page turn in mid-solo. This
On May 28, 2006, at 2:53 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 28 May 2006 at 13:41, Richard Smith wrote:
If I may be permitted to yank this thread in another direction, I am
convinced that in many (certainly not all) cases, the use of repeats,
endings, DS, al Coda, al Fine, ect. is obsolete.
At 10:03 AM -0700 5/28/06, Richard Yates wrote:
There are many assumptions being made about the situation in which the score
would be used. I absolutely believe that in the one you, and others, have
assumed (sight-reading with a group of players) that you are correct.
Your third example
On 28 May 2006, at 19:03, Richard Yates wrote:
It is a solo classical guitar transcription of a piano work by
Onslow.
How is the repeat notated in the original piano piece?
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
At 3:55 PM -0400 5/28/06, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I should also have mentioned the soloist's part should *never*
include a page turn in mid-solo. This seems glaringly obvious, but
you wouldn't believe how often composers/arrangers who copy their
own parts make this mistake.
Well, such
Like your second example, of course. It's conventional and
unambiguous. And pulling a single measure onto the previous page is
trivial. John
Sorry if I was not clear about that last point. There are two-thirds of the
B section is on the last page so it is not simply a matter of pulling one
It is a solo classical guitar transcription of a piano work by
Onslow.
How is the repeat notated in the original piano piece?
It is written out. Makes it too many pages for my purposes (publication page
requirement OR music stand)
Richard
___
Richard Smith wrote:
Current practice is often stuck in the habits of previous centuries and does not reflect thecapabilities of our software. Finale or Sibelius (even most of the toy
notation programs) eliminate the need for repeats to save the engraver'stime. Just copy and paste (and edit as
That's funny: didn't somebody say that repeat sections were used in
previous centuries and now with modern software there's no reason
not to write it all out? And here precisely the contrary is happening.
I would tend towards presenting the arrangement in the same form as
the original:
These are parts people are bringing into a sight-reading workshop! So
many jazz composers don't even consider page turns -- the issue is
not even on their radar. For this, and many other issues, the
prevailing attitude is overwhelmingly: the computer will take care
of it.
Regardless,
Darcy James Argue wrote:
These are parts people are bringing into a sight-reading workshop! So
many jazz composers don't even consider page turns -- the issue is not
even on their radar. For this, and many other issues, the prevailing
attitude is overwhelmingly: the computer will take care
have used this layout scheme since it seemed logical and compact, but
realized that I may have just made it up. Is there precedent? Seem okay?
http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/ABA.gif
Richard Yates
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
At 10:01 PM 5/27/2006, Richard Yates wrote:
have used this layout scheme since it seemed logical and compact, but
realized that I may have just made it up.
Yes, I think you made it up. It looks awfully confusing to me, and
probably impossible to sight read.
Aaron.
Keith Helgesen.
Director of Music, Canberra City Band.
Ph: (02) 62910787. Mob 0417-042171
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Richard Yates
Sent: Sunday, 28 May 2006 12:02 PM
To: Finale list
Subject: [Finale] Layout for ABA form
have used
At 10:01 PM 5/27/2006, Richard Yates wrote:
have used this layout scheme since it seemed logical and compact, but
realized that I may have just made it up.
Yes, I think you made it up. It looks awfully confusing to me, and
probably impossible to sight read.
Aaron.
How is it confusing?
89 matches
Mail list logo
