--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > I'm not sure how any > > > > composer could write any music down without first > > > > hearing it in his/her head, any more than a writer > > > > writes without first hearing the words in his/her > > > > head. ... > > > > > > Just like writers have different ways of writing so > > > do musicians have different ways of composing. > > > > Yeah, what he said. Just FYI, writers who have to > > hear the words in their head before writing them > > down are the counterpart of "mouth readers" when > > reading. Slows you down and is definitely not > > necessary, except maybe for poetry and to get a > > strong feel for dialogue. Sometimes the process > > is concept --> language, without an intervening > > stop at speech. > > > > I know, I know...somebody's going to come running > > in and say something like, "...also without a stop > > at thinking," which is possible, but not my point. :-) > > I'm just making the point that the idea of the usual > > progression as concept --> "hearing" it in your > > head --> paper is not always true. Many writers > > skip the middle step entirely. > > Just because this subject interests me, here's a > followup. I would bet that programmers can identify > with what I'm saying. You read a spec and get the > concept of the thing that has to be expressed in > code, and the code just comes out. I would bet that > most programmers don't pause to put the code that > they're writing into audible words and sound them > out in their head. Right, programmers?
Of course they don't. > Well, it's the same thing when programming English, > or any other language. Once you have the syntax > down, The syntax, once you've mastered it, "lives" in the sense of hearing, just as it does with writing. you can go straight from concept to descrip- > tion of that concept on paper, without ever hear- > ing the sounds in one's head. I would imagine the > same thing is true for mathematicians who have the > syntax of math down pat, and for physicists who have > the syntax of physics down pat. Sounding things out > in one's head is an unnecessary step that can slow > down (and sometimes stifle) the process of creation. Absolutely. As I said, it isn't a matter of "sounding things out in one's head." > For dialogue, I agree that it's essential. Otherwise, > you wind up writing dialogue that sounds like it > was written by David Mamet. :-) Not necessarily even with dialogue, any more than you sound words out in your head before you speak. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
