At 06:23 PM 6/24/06 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
>I'm missig your point here, as Andrew was talking about *notational*
>innovation. I don't know of any particular notational innovation most
>of your examples.
>I believe Andrew was talking about the big breaks in notation where
>new kinds of music emerged and forced a new kind of notation.
>Beethovan and the Sturm und Drang period certainly did not in any way
>stretch the notational systems precisely because the innovations they
>exhibited could perfectly well be represented in the existing
>notational system without alteration to it.
Okay, good. Thanks for clarifying and warding off a sematic trainwreck.
We slightly misread each other. He was responding to my 'cycling back' as
being about notation, and I was talking about composition opening the doors
to notational advance. If composition cycles back into the experimental
state, then notational advances can happen ('can' does not mean 'will').
Conversely, notation does not show advances during periods of compositional
conservatism like the rather extreme one we're experiencing, and the
coincidence of notation software and compositional conservatism magnify the
consequences.
The consequences are that notational evolution slows, and in this
particular period, the advances made in the earlier decades are being
pushed back. Cycling back will likely restore those advances, but it
doesn't assure another revolutionary change to the vocabulary.
Dennis
--
Please participate in my latest project:
http://maltedmedia.com/waam/
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
