I think that the parameters of the physics of sound follow in order of reason after the spiritually intended. There is a good saying: "Mind before matter". You don't draw up a formula first and then see how it sounds. You measure the soundwave and come up with the physical accoustic results which arose from human thought.
And if thought is not spiritual then we may as well consult our Pentium IV processors to write our mails for us. When you teach someone "musicality" you go through the specifics of the physics involved only to make sure both teacher and student are understanding each other. But once that understanding is there, and both are aware of it, then the teacher is free to start talking in more abstract terms, and then the student takes off in wonderful colors and vision and insight and depth and grace and anger and peace and all that other cool stuf that ain't got numbers attached to it (or even dollar signs for that matter). Liudas ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stu McIntire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Richard Huggins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Finale List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:50 PM Subject: RE: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT > I'm picking a nit, but I think holding that these changes are measurable is > important to me because that is the quality that deflates mysticism, in > general one of my missions in life. To me, if anything different between > two items is discernible, that means that if the quality that is different > is isolated, it can, in fact, be measured by some appropriate unit of > measure. For instance, variation in touch, from one note to the next, can > be quantified in units of velocity and/or volume; pitch, in cents, etc. > > > From: "Stu McIntire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > "Musicality" in this case, maybe most of the time, is not some ghost in > the > > machine that can't be measured; it is quite simply small but measurable > > changes in "real" attributes of the sounds, and spaces between the sounds, > > that comprise the music. > > I think this is a good description. I sometimes use a term I call "volume > shading" to describe, as best I can, the concept of "touch" at the piano. > And touch is an intimate cousin of musicality--what is called above "small > but measurable changes" (although I would not quite agree with "measurable," > rather "discernible"). I heard a children's choir accompanist play recently > at a church, and the lady played the notes almost perfectly, yet had no > variation of touch or emphasis. To me it was quite distracting. > > Changes in pressure, not only from note to note but also within notes > pressed at the same time, mixed with all sorts of shadings of tempo, figure > into musicality. > > "Spaces between the sounds" is insightful--how true. > > -Richard > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
