On 8 Feb 2005 at 20:37, Richard Yates wrote: [quoting me replying to himself:] > > > When I am practicing I am consciously applying principles and > > > solving problems in physics such as conservation of momentum, > > > distribution of forces, and lengths and angles of of compund > > > levers. Knowing those principles of physics has helped make my > > > learning of the movements more efficient. That all of this > > > eventually becomes unconscious (or at least out of present > > > awareness) through practice in no way negates the importance of > > > physics. > > > > But it doesn't make them *signficant* to making music -- it's > > technique, not music. Yes, technique is essential to mastery of the > > music, but you can have all the technique in the world and produce > > nothing of musical significance. > > A weak rhetorical dodge because, conversely, with no technique at all > you produce no music at all. The difference in our positions is not so > symmetrical, however. You have been claiming that physics has NO > significance while I say that it has SOME significance.
No, I have said physics has no *musical* significance. The frame of the Mona Lisa does not alter its artistic significance (though it may certainly change our perceptions of it), but without the frame and framework behind the canvas, it couldn't exist (unless, of course, it's painted on a wood panel or some such, which doesn't really change my point). I would say it makes no significant contribution to the impact or meaning of the artwork, even though it is a necessary element of the work. It is just an element of no artistic significance. > > I guess I think about music in an entirely different fashion than > > most people do. That might explain why I find much of what I hear > > produced by musicians so incredibly lacking in basic musicianship. > > Maybe they're all thinking about angular momentum, levers and > > distribution of forces instead of thinking about phrasing and > > expression and dynamics and balance and agogics. > > We have all heard them, too. But it is not logical to conclude that, > because they think only of physics, that physics has no significance > in music. Do you also think that, because there are uninspiring > recipe-bound cooks, chemistry has no significance in cooking? It seems to me that you are willfully re-reading everything I've written -- I'm talking about *musical* significance, and always have been, and quite clearly. And I also would say that even when stripped down to what you are saying I've said, the significance of physics to music is rather axiomatic, rather like the importance of gravity to flying and airplane. Absent gravity, none of our airplanes would work, but that's axiomatic to the whole system on which the whole system we use for building airplanes is built. It's so basic as to be trivial. I could be an interesting study in and of itself, yet still have very little significance to an actual pilot. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
