I agree with Chuck here -- I list for my students what order I (and I am very careful to point out that this is my personal order of importance) I feel musical elements should be thought of: 1) rhythm 2) pitch 3) tempo variations 4) articulations 5) dynamics
I tell them that, of course, we are trying our best to master music well enough to attend to all of these items simultaneously, but if they can't get everything right, be sure to get the rhythm correct, because a right note played at the wrong time is still a wrong note. Then worry about pitch, and only after they are sure rhythm and pitch are accurate do any of the other details take on any importance. It has gotten me through 40 years of musical life so far and I see no need to change things. Chuck Israels wrote: > At 10:40 PM +1000 6/5/02, Kenneth Kuhlmann wrote: > >> > From: "Chuck Israels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> >>> The three most important things in music are: rhythm, rhythm, and >>> rhythm, in that order. >>> >> >> Chuck: Surely rhythm, melody and harmony are the eternal musical trinity >> - allowing, of course, that the relative importance of each element >> may vary between cultures? >> >> Is your emphasis on rhythm an over-compensation for the >> relative rhythmic poverty of much of the popular canon of European >> art music - cf. the Indian or African traditions or even the Eastern >> Mediterannean, for instance? > > > Dear Kenneth, > > Of course, statements like this are flippant and open to criticism for > being superficial, but it has been my experience that if the timing's > wrong, nothing you can do with the other elements will fix the problem - > something like that. (And good rhythm will help to forgive shortcomings > in melody and harmony.) At least it seems to work that way in my own > listening and composing experience. > > > Chuck -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
