Dear Ken,
I see now that my response to you went to the whole list instead of to you peronally, which was my intention. I really didn't mean to hawk my books to everyone, certainly not in the best of taste.
For a number of composers and theorists on the Finale List this topic is undoubtedly a hot one, but for many others it could be regarded as a bothersome
sidetrack. I suggest that those interested respond directly to you and me. I'm all for interesting OT messages occasionally, but these sometimes account for more bandwidth than the main topic - Finale - how to make the best use of the software, getting help with problems, calling attention to bugs and quirks, and the subject of notation in general. If you don't mind, I'll respond directly to you.
Best regards,
Hal
Ken Moore writes:
I reject emails > 100k automatically: warn me beforehand if you want to send oneIn message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Harold Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:Thanks for your reply. It seems we are soul brothers. It's really interesting how theorists (them) and composers (me) approach music differently.
Although you don't specify, I presume that you agree with my
compositional aims (after Ellington) rather than my jaundiced view of
Schenker.
If you would like to see a composer's theory book, take a look at my "Music Theory Resource Book" published by Oxford. The same can be said for my counterpoint book, "Modal and Tonal Counterpoint: Josquin to Stravinsky," published by Shirmer Books.
I shall look out for them. Unfortunately our local university seems to be about to abolish its Music Department, but I expect they will keep its library.
I have had several arguments with my Professor because I have never seen a convincing statement from an analyst specifying what s/he thought was the nature of the subject matter. My main candidates are:
1) The way the composer thought, or might have thought about the work;
2) The way a listener thinks, or might think about the work;
3) The way a performer should think (some performers do Schenkerian analyses before they perform);
3) Marks on paper (in which case the process is pointless).
Of these, 1) and 2) ought to be supported by more evidence than I have ever seen in any book about analysis. 3) has the nature of a command rather than a statement, though evidence would be welcome that a particular analytical method had some value.
Any thoughts.
-- Ken Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web site: http://www.mooremusic.org.uk/
-- Harold Owen 2830 Emerald St., Eugene, OR 97403 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit my web site at: http://uoregon.edu/~hjowen FAX: (509) 461-3608 _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
