On 04.09.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
And the number of parts in the Dresden set doesn't tell you anything -
No, and I never said that. It is the number of _voices_ available in
Dresden which makes the whole thing interesting.
What I don't understand is why so many people seem to believe
On 04.09.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
Which doesn't tell us whether or not Bach would object to having 8-12
singers, only that in many situations, the parts clearly indicate one-
on-a-part performance.
We weren't talking about what Bach wanted or objected to. That is
something which is mostly
On 04.09.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
It's the dogmatic limitation that has always annoyed the hell out of
me, not the assertion that the pieces were performed one on a part in
their original performances.
You haven't read it, have you? I mean Joshua's theories, not what others
have said
On 9/4/07, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't apply the practices of one place to another unless there
were demonstrated connections (like shared background of teachers,
and a Kapellmeister or two shuttling back and forth between them).
There was no European or German
I would hope not -- the measured roll Chuck is talking about is
ubiquitous in the contemporary piano literature. If someone's first
reaction on encountering a sixteenth tuplet roll is huh?, they are
probably not the kind of piano player Chuck wants playing his music
in the first place.
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
[snip]
Which I think is what Parrott, Rifkin, and now Paul McCreesh are
advocating: let's hear the music the way Bach had it performed and
according to the documentary evidence.
[snip]
And of course that means with violins using gut strings and tuned to
Bach's pitch,
On 5 Sep 2007 at 7:37, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 04.09.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
Which doesn't tell us whether or not Bach would object to having 8-12
singers, only that in many situations, the parts clearly indicate one-
on-a-part performance.
We weren't talking about what Bach
On 5 Sep 2007 at 7:41, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 04.09.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
It's the dogmatic limitation that has always annoyed the hell out of
me, not the assertion that the pieces were performed one on a part in
their original performances.
You haven't read it, have you? I
On 5 Sep 2007 at 7:44, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 05.09.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
Who made this claim? Nobody in this discussion, so far as I can
recall, but perhaps you could provide an attributed quotation where
someone made that claim.
Well, perhaps not directly, but John was
On 5 Sep 2007 at 7:45, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 05.09.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
I'm only pointing out the weaknesses in interpretation of evidence
that come from making claims about what was never there based on what
is now there.
Yes, but the whole theory is based on _much_
On 5 Sep 2007 at 2:45, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
On 9/4/07, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't apply the practices of one place to another unless there
were demonstrated connections (like shared background of teachers,
and a Kapellmeister or two shuttling back and forth
On Sep 5, 2007, at 12:32 AM, Richard Huggins wrote:
Even if this guy figures out
Hmm, I'm sure you didn't mean the level of disrespect implied by
referring to a musician of Chuck's renown and ability as this guy.
It must have been that you lost the original attribution. If Leonard
I have every reason to believe that the performer of this piece will
understand exactly what my notation means. It would be possible to
say - Please make this roll rhythmically meaningful. Have it imply
clearly the rhythmic arrival of the down beat on the top note. Easy
enough, if you
On 9/5/07, dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And of course that means with violins using gut strings and tuned to
Bach's pitch, correct? Lit by candles?
Otherwise we won't hear it the way Bach had it performed.
Well, you left out the powered wigs, then everything would be hunky dory!
On Sep 5, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
Well, you left out the powered wigs, then everything would be hunky
dory!
And everyone not bathing very often, and syphilis, and reduced
lifespan from all manner of easily-curable diseases (nowadays)...
But I bet the music was just
Chuck Israels / 2007/09/05 / 10:22 AM wrote:
Otherwise we are stuck with the inadequacies
of notation, none of which ever completely expresses what's in a
played (or spoken) language.
I believe this is a part of the game. You leave margin of
interpretation for performer's creativity, or
But this guy implies no disrespect at all, even to that guy Leonard
Bernstein.
On Sep 5, 2007, at 12:32 AM, Richard Huggins wrote:
Even if this guy figures out
Hmm, I'm sure you didn't mean the level of disrespect implied by
referring to a musician of Chuck's renown and ability as this
On 9/5/07, Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And everyone not bathing very often, and syphilis, and reduced
lifespan from all manner of easily-curable diseases (nowadays)...
But I bet the music was just grand!
Well while we're at it,how about bathroom facilities that would make
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
On 9/5/07, dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And of course that means with violins using gut strings and tuned to
Bach's pitch, correct? Lit by candles?
Otherwise we won't hear it the way Bach had it performed.
Well, you left out the powered wigs, then
On 9/5/07, Raymond Horton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Powered by ... static electricity, I'm guessing? Or perhaps steam?
Somebody had to say it.
Hehe, yes! Little steam engines!!!
;)
Kim
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
On Sep 5, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
Well, you left out the powered wigs, then everything would be hunky
dory!
Ooh! Powered wigs! Way cool! Did they use batteries or what?
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://www.kallistimusic.com/
On Sep 4, 2007, at 11:31 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
You said equal temperament not well-tempered. They are not even
close to being the same thing.
Oh come on. The range of possible temperaments in wh. it is possible to
play musically in every key is a very narrow one, and the difference
On 9/5/07, Andrew Stiller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ooh! Powered wigs! Way cool! Did they use batteries or what?
Not way cool, but tres cool!
Triple A cadiums in fact!
Kim
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's the dogmatic limitation that has always annoyed the hell out of
me, not the assertion that the pieces were performed one on a part
in their original performances.
What dogmatic limitation?
Actually the onus is on providing proof that 12-20
I'm pretty sure that this behaviour has something to do with a
multimeasure rest at the very start or the very end of a piece.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Barbara Touburg wrote:
I'm pretty sure that this behaviour has something to do with a
multimeasure rest at the very start or the very end of a piece.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Hi all,
Appealing to the general audio knowledge of the list: I'm on Windows.
A Mac friend of mine ripped a CD track to an AIFF file and uploaded
it in binary mode to my FTP site. I downloaded it in binary mode, and
it plays back as garbage. (It plays fine on his machine.)
My Mac friend
What software are you using to play it back? Have you checked the
file in iTunes?
Cheers,
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 05 Sep 2007, at 4:45 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
Hi all,
Appealing to the general audio knowledge of the list: I'm on
Windows. A Mac friend of mine
Chuck, I agree with you 100%! It seems like there's always someone who
knows better and thinks that what you wrote just can't work. Annoying
as all getout.
Arg!
Chuck
On Sep 5, 2007, at 11:47 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Sep 5, 2007, at 10:22 AM, Chuck Israels wrote:
I have every
Aaron Sherber / 2007/09/05 / 04:45 PM wrote:
I have received AIFFs before from other Mac people with no problem.
Is there some magic he has to perform on his end to make the file
Windows-friendly?
Here is my guess.
AIFF and WAV aren't that different. Just a header difference. AIFF
created
At 05:17 PM 9/5/2007, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
If your source AIFF is in fact little-endian, you should be able to
replace .aif extension to .wav extension. I just tried with WMP on my
XP, and it works fine.
Interesting idea, but didn't work for me. When I change it from AIFF
to WAV, WMP still
At 05:02 PM 9/5/2007, Darcy James Argue wrote:
What software are you using to play it back? Have you checked the
file in iTunes?
Fascinating. iTunes plays it fine. It does not play in WMP, Real
Player, VLC Player. Audacity won't open it, nor will Sony SoundForge.
I got my Mac friend to send
At 05:44 PM 9/5/2007 -0400, Aaron Sherber wrote:
I got my Mac friend to send as a WAV instead, which works fine, so
the actual crisis has passed. But I'm still curious about what's
going on, since I've successfully FTPed AIFF files from other Mac folks
before.
I've had an experience with some
On 5 Sep 2007 at 10:24, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
On 9/5/07, dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And of course that means with violins using gut strings and tuned to
Bach's pitch, correct? Lit by candles?
Otherwise we won't hear it the way Bach had it performed.
Well, you left out the
On 5 Sep 2007 at 11:46, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
I'll just stick to my desire to hear the music performed in the forces
it was played with and with historically informed techniques. I'll let
others have the other fun parts of that time, but definitely NOT for
me
While I'm all for that, there
On 9/5/07, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I *so* want a powered wig! But I can't decide between AC and DC...
That's what the friendly sales people at Home Depot are for ;)
Kim
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
On 5 Sep 2007 at 20:22, Ken Moore wrote:
David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: we were just
trying to get the music performed with the forces we had.
Yet, the mere suggestion that Bach was doing the
same thing seems to be treated as heresy by those
devoted to the crusade.
On 5 Sep 2007 at 19:52, Ken Moore wrote:
David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's the dogmatic limitation that has always annoyed the hell out of
me, not the assertion that the pieces were performed one on a part
in their original performances.
What dogmatic limitation?
At 06:19 PM 9/5/2007 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 5 Sep 2007 at 14:38, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Oh come on. The range of possible temperaments in wh. it is possible to
play musically in every key is a very narrow one, and the difference
*in sound* between well-tempered and equal-tempered is
On 9/5/07, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but there has always been a degree of
righteous indignation in the tone with which he makes his arguments.
Oh I think this can go both ways. Have you seen Ton Koopman or Dr.
Christoph Wolff speak about this subject? I mentioned the video on
Man, am I about fed up with Finale 2008 and all the freakin', stupid,
time-wasting, hair-pulling, inconsistent bugs (and the consistent
ones, too, that they haven't gotten around to!)
I created a new document. I didn't even use a Style document, because
that had given me file corruption
As long as we are bouncing around among the theoretical, the
practical, the evidence, and the interpretation of evidence, may I
mention a matter that everyone seems to have been overlooking amid
all the rhetoric (and yes, including my own!).
Modern performances with one singer on a part do
On 9/5/07, John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Modern performances with one singer on a part do not use young boys
whose voices have not changed, or young university men whose voices
have not been thoroughly trained. At least that is true of every
example I have heard.
Have you heard the
43 matches
Mail list logo
