On Jun 23, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Randolph Peters wrote:
Dynamics and balance are the biggest pitfall. The dynamic you put
in the score to make it sound right is often NOT the dynamic you
need in a real situation. This is a complex issue --
An interesting thought. If the goal of human
On 25 Jun 2007 at 18:31, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Jun 23, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Randolph Peters wrote:
Dynamics and balance are the biggest pitfall. The dynamic you put
in the score to make it sound right is often NOT the dynamic you
need in a real situation. This is a complex issue --
An
in
good practice of neatness in writing and hence, reading.
- Original Message -
From: Lawrence David Eden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: finale@shsu.edu
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Finale] New Question
My response is this:
I write and arrange MUCH better using Finale
[snip] I am working on an interactive jazz arranging book/DVD -
whatever it's
going to turn out to be - for Gary Garritan. I am convinced that this
technology provides a useful sketch tool for composer arrangers who
don't have musicians available, but it only serves as a severely limited
On Jun 23, 2007, at 6:55 AM, dhbailey wrote:
[snip] I am working on an interactive jazz arranging book/DVD -
whatever it's
going to turn out to be - for Gary Garritan. I am convinced that
this technology provides a useful sketch tool for composer
arrangers who don't have musicians
Hi David and Christopher,
I am not so quick to dismiss the thoughtful list of characteristics
David submits here. It points the inexperienced ear in the right
direction. Christopher describes the gap between the two experiences
pretty much the way it occurs to me - worlds apart.
That
On Jun 23, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Chuck Israels wrote:
What is never right - in my scores, are the balances. Those things
change so rapidly in a live performance, that I can't even imagine
the amount of work it would take to include them in sound created
by a machine, and whatever you
On Jun 23, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
We have a tougher time in jazz bands. The traditional
instrumentation is dynamically out of whack to begin with, and few
bands compensate for this in a way that would satisfy my musical
vision. (It is possible to do - check out
At 7:55 PM -0700 6/22/07, Chuck Israels wrote:
On Jun 22, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Williams, Jim wrote:
There may indeed be some real teachable moments in this...would
make students more aware of good performance practice and also
might make for less mundane MIDI renderings as well! Has anyone
Chuck Israels wrote:
So what I want to suggest to users of this technology is something
like: Check your pitches and rhythms, with the understanding that
subtleties in each of those areas will be changed by live musicians
(in good and bad ways!), and try to get an idea of the overall
On Jun 23, 2007, at 5:56 PM, John Howell wrote:
And yes, I agree with whoever said that active performance practice
is going to differ from what's taught in Jazz Studies courses,
which seem to me mostly to concentrate on the ritual adoration of
the be-boppers complete with
On Jun 23, 2007, at 3:23 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
What you call the ritual adoration of beboppers is no different
than the study of the accepted canon of classical masters. It's a
base, and a darn good one to start out with.
Christopher
Or the art student painting a copy of a
At 3:14 PM -0400 6/21/07, Christopher Smith wrote:
Oh yeah! That's for sure! I can't tell you how many young writers
think that strings can only play mid-range whole notes, because
that's what their synth string patches sound good playing.
Or that brass can only play short stabs, in the
On Jun 22, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
In England 100 years ago, it was usual for trombonists to play all
notes staccato and fortissimo, regardless of the notated duration
or dynamic.
Ah, plus ça change, plus ça reste le même!
Christopher
(the more things change, the
On Jun 21, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Lon Price wrote:
their writing is much more adventurous, because they're writing for
the real instruments, rather than a MIDI imitation of those
instruments. I'm afraid that young aspiring composers are
On Jun 22, 2007, at 10:05 AM, John Howell wrote:
At 3:14 PM -0400 6/21/07, Christopher Smith wrote:
Oh yeah! That's for sure! I can't tell you how many young writers
think that strings can only play mid-range whole notes, because
that's what their synth string patches sound good playing.
I am working on an interactive jazz arranging book/DVD - whatever
it's going to turn out to be - for Gary Garritan. I am convinced
that this technology provides a useful sketch tool for composer
arrangers who don't have musicians available, but it only serves as a
severely limited
On Jun 22, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Williams, Jim wrote:
I am working on an interactive jazz arranging book/DVD - whatever
it's going to turn out to be - for Gary Garritan. I am convinced
that this technology provides a useful sketch tool for composer
arrangers who don't have musicians
Chuck,
There may indeed be some real teachable moments in this...would
make students more aware of good performance practice and also
might make for less mundane MIDI renderings as well! Has anyone
authored a jazz performance practice text as has been done for
other types of music?
John Howell wrote:
[snip] imagination, the tools shouldn't make any difference. (Except
for not
being able to see the entire score page at once, of course, which IS a
problem.)
That's not a problem anymore either, once you get a monitor which will
pivot and is large enough to show the full
My response is this:
I write and arrange MUCH better using Finale instead of paper and
pencil. I guess my inner ear is just not advanced enough to be able
to write and know exactly how something will sound, so I rely on
Finale playback to test my theories.
I think that Beethoven and Mozart
I think that Beethoven and Mozart would have used Finale if it were
available back in their day.
This is definitely a generational issue. When I started using Finale
in 1991 there was still a whole generation of composers out there
who never used a computer for anything, and saw no
I'm a boomer (age 54) and write only a few sketches on paper. I work
nearly everything out on the computer, being a poor pianist, although I
occasionally have some good original ideas working with a pencil away
from anything. Working on the computer is fairly slow, but the result
is a
On Jun 21, 2007, at 8:56 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
I think that Beethoven and Mozart would have used Finale if it
were available back in their day.
This is definitely a generational issue. When I started using
Finale in 1991 there was still a whole generation of composers
out
On Jun 21, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Lon Price wrote:
I think the biggest problem with working the way I do is the
tendency to write only what can be rendered satisfactorily in
Finale or Digital Performer. In other words, I sometimes feel that
my writing tends to be too safe. When I listen to
At 06:59 AM 6/21/2007 -0400, dhbailey wrote:
John Howell wrote:
[snip] imagination, the tools shouldn't make any difference. (Except
for not
being able to see the entire score page at once, of course, which IS a
problem.)
That's not a problem anymore either, once you get a monitor which will
I agree with you, Raymond. I'm only slightly older than you and have
used Finale since 1991 and Sibelius since 1999. I don't think it's as
much a generational issue as a sign of the different ways we all think
and work.
What I find with Finale (and to an even greater extent with Sibelius) is
The request for new topics plus the fact that there's a Mythbusters marathon
going on got me thinking about confirming or busting a notation myth. I've
heard many composers state that composing/arranging on paper with pencil is
not only preferable but artistically better than composing directly
Undubitably, from a statistical point of view, the vast majority of the
composers between 1650 and now did prefer pencil and paper...
:-)
More seriously: pen is a tool, rather simple; computer is a tool, a little
more complicated. I think it is very good (or necessary?) to be able to
compose
At 12:21 PM 6/20/2007 -0500, Rob Deemer wrote:
The request for new topics plus the fact that there's a Mythbusters marathon
going on got me thinking about confirming or busting a notation myth. I've
heard many composers state that composing/arranging on paper with pencil is
not only preferable but
On Jun 20, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Rob Deemer wrote:
The request for new topics plus the fact that there's a Mythbusters
marathon
going on got me thinking about confirming or busting a notation
myth. I've
heard many composers state that composing/arranging on paper with
pencil is
not only
On Jun 20, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Rob Deemer wrote:
The request for new topics plus the fact that there's a Mythbusters
marathon
going on got me thinking about confirming or busting a notation
myth. I've
heard many composers state that composing/arranging on paper with
pencil is
not only
I've found it prefereable to go back and forth between pencil-and-paper on
one hand, and the computer on the other. There's no point to requiring a
computer in the formative stages of a work as a pencil can still do some
things the computer can't. Computers impose a certain formality that is
not
At 12:21 PM -0500 6/20/07, Rob Deemer wrote:
The request for new topics plus the fact that there's a Mythbusters marathon
going on got me thinking about confirming or busting a notation myth. I've
heard many composers state that composing/arranging on paper with pencil is
not only preferable but
Rob Deemer wrote:
The request for new topics plus the fact that there's a Mythbusters
marathon
going on got me thinking about confirming or busting a notation myth. I've
heard many composers state that composing/arranging on paper with pencil is
not only preferable but artistically better than
35 matches
Mail list logo
