On 3 Apr 2006 at 14:06, Phil Daley wrote: > At 4/3/2006 01:55 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote: > > >> >> I agree that improvisation is not notatable. > > > >Somehow this false assumption got into the thread, and needs to be > >expunged.
> >While it is *arguable* that jazz improvisation cannot be notated (I > >don't, myself, agree), it is unquestionable that products of the > >organ improvisation tradition, in the style of Bach, > >Vierne, etc. are as perfectly notatable as their models, since they > >obey the exact same rhythmic and pitch constraints. > > > >There are > >quite a few pieces of keyboard music, violin solos, etc. in the > >literature that started out as improvisations, but which the > >creators then thought so much of that they wrote them down as fixed > >compositions--so, clearly, they must have been notatable in the > >first place! > > I was agreeing with David, I thought, to jazz improvisation. You're perhaps agreeing with something I didn't say. I never said jazz improvisation couldn't be notated. I just said it was very *difficult* to do it accurately. > But, I think you have made a good point. It seems to me that you start with an a priori judgment, that you don't like rap, and then, presuming that you don't like it because it's not music, you then twist the definitions of music to fit your conclusion. The result is a very tortured definition of music, one that breaks down over and over again. That this is the case might cause you to question your a priori judgment that rap is not music. Once you've recognized that by all reasonable definitions rap is still music, you are still completely free to dislike rap. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
