At 4:12 PM -0400 6/24/06, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 02:14 PM 6/24/06 -0400, John Howell wrote:
And let's not forget that the development of non-traditional
notations in the 20th century was driven by one and only one
non-musical requirement: music could not be copyrighted unless it
could be represented on paper. Since it WAS necessary, composers
developed those notations, but except for that copyright requirement
those composers might have dropped notation entirely as being too
inexact for what they wanted to express.
Where did you ever come up with that? I have never in my life heard that
theory, and have never known a composer who has said that was the reason
they have added to the symbolic vocabulary. Was this somebody's PhD thesis? :)
No, just my own logical inference, based on no research whatsoever.
Item: U.S. copyright law of 1909 only covered music rendered on
paper. (I don't know whether the law in other countries was similar.)
Item: 20th century composers developed new notations--on
paper--without which their work could not have been covered by
copyright.
Conclusion: The need for copyright protection, probably among other
needs, influenced personal decisions to develop new paper notations.
Are you suggesting that this was NOT one factor, whether anyone spoke
about it or not (since it was simply a legal given for most of the
20th century)?
Once the necessity was there, of course, I don't question that a lot
of good creativity by a lot of people much smarter than I went into
the developments, for reasons they felt were perfectly reasonable.
That's how it works. Make something necessary, and people will
respond with creativity.
John
--
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
