Composers and Perfect Pitch?
Jarl Sigurd
did not have perfect pitch. Were there any other
noteable composers who did not have perfect pitch.
Jarl Sigurd
to listen to a symphony composed by Jarl Sigurd
visit: http://geocities.com/Paris/Lights/3333
Dr.Matt
For most notable composers, whether or not they had it is not noted in their
biographies.
--
My CD "Kabala": http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/cd.html
Matt Fields DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox http://start.at/tttb
For spammers: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/uce.htm
More for spammers (thank you, NMSU!): http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/cgi-bin/meep
Neal
important at all to becoming a great composer.
Jarl Sigurd wrote in message ...
Nicholas Hamshaw
came around, and our friend Camille named all of the notes as they were
played in the other room.........
Nick Hamshaw
David Sherman
And you would be right.
>I wonder if it's
>important at all to becoming a great composer.
Not in the least. It doesn't hurt, but it isn't at all necessary.
I took years and years of ear training and solfege classes with many musicians
who had perfect pitch. when it came to sight singing and dictations they were
often flawless.
However when it came to the more analytical excercises (transposing at sight,
the seven diferent clefs, 7th chords and their inversions, and other mind
bending excercises that were cooked up by Nadia Boulanger and her entourage...)
the playing field got level very quickly.
It's one thing to be able to hear pitches. It's another thing to know what to
do with them!
remove "nospam" from address
AlexanderDamyanovich
>I'm sorry, I can't resist the urge. Does anyone here know the definition
of
>a perfict pitch? It is being able to stand backwards, and while having
your
>eyes closed throw an accordion over your shoulder and have it land in a
>toilet without touching the sides of it. Btw, I DO play the accordion
>
What kind of joke/jibing/abuse is that??
Perfect pitch simply means that you can recognize a given note's pitch
without being told or informed as to what it's supposed to be. That
includes no previous notes with identification other than from your own ear
and brain. [It also can be a curse if for any reason you have to play on an
instrument tuned to a standard different to what's the norm (e.g., the organ
of the Michaelskerk in Zwolle, the Netherlands: 1 whole tone _above_
today's norm of concert pitch, let alone what likely was the case 300 years
ago).]
--
"I run to Death, and Death meets me as fast, and all my pleasures are as
yesterday" - John Donne
"Deliver my soul, O LORD, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue." -
Psalm 120, 2.
To reply, remove MARCHE anti-spam device from E-address
John Bell
> I understand that Wagner, Berlioz and Bruckner all
> did not have perfect pitch. Were there any other
> noteable composers who did not have perfect pitch.
>
> Jarl Sigurd
>
> to listen to a symphony composed by Jarl Sigurd
> visit: http://geocities.com/Paris/Lights/3333
me
guafie
a perfict pitch? It is being able to stand backwards, and while having your
eyes closed throw an accordion over your shoulder and have it land in a
toilet without touching the sides of it. Btw, I DO play the accordion
Jarl Sigurd <jarls...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:sf8z4.10357$Xk2....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
guafie
AlexanderDamyanovich <azda...@inetsonic.com> wrote in message
news:%3jz4.2142$w8.8...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> guafie wrote in message ...
> of
> >a perfict pitch? It is being able to stand backwards, and while having
> your
> >eyes closed throw an accordion over your shoulder and have it land in a
> >toilet without touching the sides of it. Btw, I DO play the accordion
> >
I'm sorry if I offended anyone here, I guess it's just my sense of humor,
but another word for throwing is pitch or pitching, and throwing the
accordion?
Oh well. I should learn to keep my mouth shut. Thanks for the other info.
though.
Andrys D Basten
AlexanderDamyanovich <azdamya...@inetsonic.com> wrote:
>and brain. [It also can be a curse if for any reason you have to play on an
>instrument tuned to a standard different to what's the norm (e.g., the organ
>of the Michaelskerk in Zwolle, the Netherlands: 1 whole tone _above_
>today's norm of concert pitch, let alone what likely was the case 300 years
>ago).]
Just want to add, as before, that it depends on the type.
Some of us can fool ourselves, as needed that a note 2 notes
above C or 2 notes below, is a C. This comes in VERY handy
when doing early music, some of which is done at a=397 or a=415
or a=440 or even a note sharper than we're used to in some
regions of Europe at that time -- the resulting instruments made
from those models play a note higher).
Beyond that, I can't adjust. However, if I know the piece in
my memory, then I would be able to play it in any key (unless
it's a wildly complex piece). With some it's not just giving
the name of a note (as learned on a particular instrument) but
matching sounds you hear to where they are on an instrument so
that you don't actually think in terms of naming note, as that
would take too long. You just know what they correspond to on
the instrument.
- A
--
Andrys Basten, CNE http://www.andrys.com/ PC Network Support
http://www.andrys.com/indox.html - Machu Picchu PhotoDiary w/Canon Elph
http://www.andrys.com/books.html
Search VIDEOS, SHEET MUSIC, CDs, Gramophone reviews
http://www.andrys.com/freddyk.html - Freddy Kempf on CD
http://www.andrys.com/argerich.html - available Argerich recordings
Robert H. Risch
<jarls...@geocities.com> wrote:
>I understand that Wagner, Berlioz and Bruckner all
>did not have perfect pitch. Were there any other
>noteable composers who did not have perfect pitch.
>
>Jarl Sigurd
>
>to listen to a symphony composed by Jarl Sigurd
>visit: http://geocities.com/Paris/Lights/3333
I believe I read in Grove's dictionary that Wagner and Schumann didn't
have perfect pitch. Where did you read that Berlioz and Bruckner
didn't? Is there any way to tell from listening to their music?
Dana
Dana
--
This is my e-mail address spelled out to prevent me from receiving internet
spam: cdjackson AT zoomtown DOT COM
guafie <caroli...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<Iqiz4.1902$QY4.1...@news0.telusplanet.net>...
> I'm sorry, I can't resist the urge. Does anyone here know the definition
of
> a perfict pitch? It is being able to stand backwards, and while having
your
> eyes closed throw an accordion over your shoulder and have it land in a
> toilet without touching the sides of it. Btw, I DO play the accordion
>
> Jarl Sigurd <jarls...@geocities.com> wrote in message
> news:sf8z4.10357$Xk2....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
Dana
Dana
--
This is my e-mail address spelled out to prevent me from receiving internet
spam: cdjackson AT zoomtown DOT COM
Neal <nea...@javanet.com> wrote in article
<8ajn2n$5nq$3...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> I imagine most composers don't have perfect pitch. I wonder if it's
> important at all to becoming a great composer.
>
> Jarl Sigurd wrote in message ...
AlexanderDamyanovich
>AlexanderDamyanovich <azdamya...@inetsonic.com> wrote:
>
>>and brain. [It also can be a curse if for any reason you have to play on
an
>>instrument tuned to a standard different to what's the norm (e.g., the
organ
>>of the Michaelskerk in Zwolle, the Netherlands: 1 whole tone _above_
>>today's norm of concert pitch, let alone what likely was the case 300
years
>>ago).]
>
> Just want to add, as before, that it depends on the type.
>Some of us can fool ourselves, as needed that a note 2 notes
>above C or 2 notes below, is a C. This comes in VERY handy
>when doing early music, some of which is done at a=397 or a=415
>or a=440 or even a note sharper than we're used to in some
>regions of Europe at that time -- the resulting instruments made
>from those models play a note higher).
Okay, if you can fool yourself, fine - I can't (more than by about 3/8 or a
tone - I have about that much leeway of tolerance, and no more). Hearing
something like the Dorian Toccata & Fugue (D minor, albeit without a key
signature) sound in _E_ minor (as Michel Chapuis has on his complete Bach
recordings, as that piece {among others of its order} was done on that
organ) is unacceptable; and when I tried to play an (electronic) instrument
with its own built-in transposer (for somebody else) on an entirely
different occasion, I found it very difficult, almost too much. It was much
better when I did the transposing - then you _know_ that you're supposed to
do it, and the ear won't be bugging you anywhere near as much (also due
perhaps to having to work out new note-sets?...).
>
> Beyond that, I can't adjust. However, if I know the piece in
>my memory, then I would be able to play it in any key (unless
>it's a wildly complex piece).
Transposition of a well-known piece is a different kettle of fish, and so is
transposition at sight (where a process has to move that much faster) - it's
not the same by any means.
Ville V Sinkko
in the first place that an individual's hearing can be so strongly fixated
to a 440 hz A, which is after all a completely arbitrary note? A skill
such as this cannot be innate. I can easily understand a person being able
to hear perfect *intervals*, but this just does not make sense! A single
note can never be in or out of tune, only intervals can.
+Cinquo
piper
wrote:
Of course a single note can be out of tune! What you are saying is
rather like saying that since it is impossible to tell with the naked
eye whether a circle is a perfectly round arc, no-one could possibly
tell the difference between a circle and an oval.
First of all, I think you will find many people who can tell the
difference between 440 hz and 442 hz, for example. Secondly, though,
if a person has learned to identify a particular sound as A, s/he will
hear anything within a certain range of hz as A. If you can't
understand this conceptually, don't worry about it, and stop thinking
about it.
Michael
To reply by email, please eliminate "NOSPAM" from my address. Personal messages only!
William H. Pittman
on 3/13/00 4:32 PM:
> I imagine most composers don't have perfect pitch. I wonder if it's
> important at all to becoming a great composer.
Well, the reverse certainly isn't true. I have perfect pitch. I haven't
composed anything since I was a teenager (I'm now 65), and my few efforts
then were laughable!
William H. Pittman
caroli...@hotmail.com wrote on 3/13/00 10:34 PM:
> I'm sorry, I can't resist the urge. Does anyone here know the definition of
> a perfict pitch? It is being able to stand backwards, and while having your
> eyes closed throw an accordion over your shoulder and have it land in a
> toilet without touching the sides of it. Btw, I DO play the accordion
ROTFL! The perfect repository? (note the question mark)
William H. Pittman
AlexanderDamyanovich at azda...@inetsonic.com wrote on 3/13/00 11:18 PM:
> [It also can be a curse if for any reason you have to play on an
> instrument tuned to a standard different to what's the norm (e.g., the organ
> of the Michaelskerk in Zwolle, the Netherlands: 1 whole tone _above_
> today's norm of concert pitch, let alone what likely was the case 300 years
> ago).]
A curse also if you sing in a chorus whose director transposes things
without telling the singers. Robert Page, during his tenure with the
Cleveland Orchestra Chorus, finally decided he had to tell us when he was
transposing so I wouldn't bug him!
William H. Pittman
vsi...@cc.helsinki.fi wrote on 3/14/00 3:03 AM:
> While we're at this subject, could some explain to me how is it *possible*
> in the first place that an individual's hearing can be so strongly fixated
> to a 440 hz A, which is after all a completely arbitrary note? A skill
> such as this cannot be innate. I can easily understand a person being able
> to hear perfect *intervals*, but this just does not make sense! A single
> note can never be in or out of tune, only intervals can.
It's very easy for someone with perfect pitch to decide, after enough
conditioning, that 440 hz represents A and to get it right ever after.
Tom Duff
>
> Saint Saens had perfect pitch. His family realised when the piano tuner
> came around, and our friend Camille named all of the notes as they were
> played in the other room.........
Why do people keep promulgating anecdotes like this?
This particular parlor trick doesn't require perfect
pitch. The piano tuner always starts with a tuning
fork A, and anyone who passed Ear Training
will be able to tell you the rest of the pitches
having heard the first. Indeed after you've heard
the piano tuner work a couple of times you should
be able to tell the sequence of pitches before
you hear them. Would anybody believe you were
psychic if you did that? Of course not!
So why would you ascribe Saint Saens' alleged
achievement to perfect pitch? I can do it, and
I don't have perfect pitch.
--
Tom Duff. Organization: top down
Serge Stodolnik
>
> >I imagine most composers don't have perfect pitch.
>
> And you would be right.
>
> >important at all to becoming a great composer.
>
My perfect pitch was getting in a way when I was cello and piano
performer and on some occasions had to play in the places where
piano was tuned to significantly lower pitch, (unfortunately lots
of such places around) it was big pain in all places.
I'm not sure if it helped me to compose........
--
Please check out Production Music at:
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/37/music_unlimited.html
Film/advertisment/production libraries/multimedia/web sites.........
Serge Stodolnik. Tel: 214-324-9942. voice/fax.
http://www.miditrax.com/sergesmusic.htm
E-MAIL: ssm...@wtd.net
Nicholas Hamshaw
article referring to the fact that Saint Saens had perfect pitch - none of
which were using the story about the piano tuner as a basis for their
reasoning. At no point have I decided that Saint Saens had this gift simply
because of an anectode. It was a small comment about something that I thought
was amusing. I'm quite aware the the 'parlour' trick you mention doesn't
require perfect pitch.....I can do it myself (ooh that means it must be easy,
since I'm soooooooo stupid and - how could I POSSIBLY think anything else? -
inferior TO YOU).
Anyway, I'm not sure why I should answer to your abrasiveness. The person who
started this thread asked a question. In the true spirit of this news group I
made a small contribution to the postings. Naturally, I would be glad to hear
about evidence to the contrary, as that is the whole point about discussion.
However, when someone leaps at your neck with comments such as yours, you
begin to wonder why some people think that they have a divine right to
consider others as being in some way inferior.
I wonder if you have read a thread I started, entitled "Can we talk about
recordings now", quite recently.......
In that thread I groaned about people who, when they (often fairly enough)
disagree with things that are written here, imply that the author of a
posting is stupid or inadequate in some way. I was just waiting for a good
flaming, so that we could all be amused to find out who the people who think
they own the place are...........
Everyone IS entitled to voice their opinions here, but I'm sure that the
majority of people don't feel to happy about you people who are the only ones
who are ever actually right.
Since I based my comments on articles/radio discussions (one of which
happened to include the anectode which will send me to hell), I though that
it may be safe to give one possible answer to a question posed here.
Obviously I was wrong.
Just one question: Why do people who already know everything bother reading
these news groups? I know.......it's so that they can make comments about
other people's postings in such a way that they feel superior. Just what are
you missing in your life if you need to walk all over someone who mentioned a
small anecdote, in oreder to make yourself seem better?
Nick Hamshaw
Tom Duff
>Anyway, I'm not sure why I should answer to your abrasiveness. The person who
>started this thread asked a question. In the true spirit of this news group I
>made a small contribution to the postings. Naturally, I would be glad to hear
>about evidence to the contrary, as that is the whole point about discussion.
>However, when someone leaps at your neck with comments such as yours, you
>begin to wonder why some people think that they have a divine right to
>consider others as being in some way inferior.
> Just one question: Why do people who already know everything bother reading
> these news groups? I know.......it's so that they can make comments about
> other people's postings in such a way that they feel superior. Just what are
> you missing in your life if you need to walk all over someone who mentioned a
> small anecdote, in oreder to make yourself seem better?
You're being hypersensitive.
I only pointed out that the
anecdote you quoted in proof
of Saint Saens' perfect pitch
carried no such implication.
I don't believe I said or
implied anything about you,
one way or another. The
closest I came was to
express frustration at the
commonness of such arguments.
I'm sorry if you took that
personally, but unless you're
the only one spreading these
stories, I didn't mean it
personally and I'm surprised
that you took it so.
--
Tom Duff. The future is over.
Shimpei Yamashita
>
>While we're at this subject, could some explain to me how is it *possible*
>in the first place that an individual's hearing can be so strongly fixated
>to a 440 hz A, which is after all a completely arbitrary note? A skill
>such as this cannot be innate. I can easily understand a person being able
>to hear perfect *intervals*, but this just does not make sense! A single
>note can never be in or out of tune, only intervals can.
Getting a "fix" on a particular frequency is clearly not innate. The
ability to get a "fix" in the first place, however, may well be
innate, though. I personally do not believe it is, but since I do have
perfect pitch and find nothing special about it, I may not be the best
person to ask....
(The only thing perfect pitch has ever bought me, aside from a few
awestruck gazes at parties where I would would demonstrate the skill
by guessing the notes on a piano with my eyes closed, was being out of
tune all the time in orchestra rehearsals because the center of "my" A
was slightly lower than 440Hz.)
--
Shimpei Yamashita <http://www2.gol.com/users/shimpei/>
Nicholas Hamshaw
jumping down your throat.
Just one thing, and I'm not trying to get at you......I didn't quote the anecdote
'as proof of Saint Saens perfect pitch'. That's my point.....the anecdote was
completely 'by the by' and not intended to be my reason (at all infact) for
believing the SS had such a quality.
It's my fault really. I should have made it clear in my original posting. The point
is I made the suggestion on the basis that I had read a number of articles relating
to the matter. As I said in my first response to your posting, the anecdote was
just something that was mentioned in a radio programme about the composer in
question: I though it was amusing and, yes, at the time I also thought that it
wasn't proof in itself. Mind you.....no-one ever said that it was.
Sometimes little anectdotes can help you get a feel for the situation at hand,
since they ofter are derived in such a way that they reflect the personality of the
composer/artist involved. For example, there are many little stories about Sir
Thomas Beecham that really do give you a good idea of the man himself.
Nick Hamshaw
MrPye
<willi...@global2000.net> writes:
>A curse also if you sing in a chorus whose director transposes things
>without telling the singers. Robert Page, during his tenure with the
>Cleveland Orchestra Chorus, finally decided he had to tell us when he was
>transposing so I wouldn't bug him!
Drifting slightly off-topic here, has anyone else come across the phenomenon
that a choir which goes horribly flat when singing in, say, F, can stay
absolutely in pitch when signing the same piece in F#? (with a sufficient gap
between the two attempts for them not to realise what has happened). Having
seen/heard this work brilliantly I tried it with an amateur choir I was
conducting. They were terribly pleased at how well they had kept in pitch
compared with the previous week's rehearsal ....
Andrys D Basten
AlexanderDamyanovich <azdamya...@inetsonic.com> wrote:
>Okay, if you can fool yourself, fine - I can't (more than by about 3/8 or a
>tone - I have about that much leeway of tolerance, and no more).
That does make things tougher.
> Hearing
>something like the Dorian Toccata & Fugue (D minor, albeit without a key
>signature) sound in _E_ minor (as Michel Chapuis has on his complete Bach
>recordings, as that piece {among others of its order} was done on that
>organ) is unacceptable
But only because you know that it should be in d ? What's the
difference if it is in e. Then you can just say, they're
playing it in e .. IF you have to play along with an
instrument, that'd be another matter.
>> Beyond that, I can't adjust. However, if I know the piece in
>>my memory, then I would be able to play it in any key (unless
>>it's a wildly complex piece).
>
>Transposition of a well-known piece is a different kettle of fish, and so is
>transposition at sight (where a process has to move that much faster) - it's
>not the same by any means.
Most people can't play a piece in any key asked. Some with
perfect pitch and with musical training (together) can, with
ease. It IS a feature of having perfect pitch.
Andrys D Basten
Shimpei Yamashita <shi...@gol.com> wrote:
>(The only thing perfect pitch has ever bought me, aside from a few
>awestruck gazes at parties where I would would demonstrate the skill
>by guessing the notes on a piano with my eyes closed, was being out of
>tune all the time in orchestra rehearsals because the center of "my" A
>was slightly lower than 440Hz.)
That's so odd to me, even if I also have the pp thing. I sing
or play by listening to the sounds around me and worry less
about what exact pitches they should be but try to create
harmonies that match. In that way you have to try to be in tune
with others. Now if others are very out of tune relative to
other parts, then everyone has to stop and do something about
it.
Bill Pearce
rhrr...@earthlink.net wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:07:41 -0800, "Jarl Sigurd"
> <jarls...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> >did not have perfect pitch. Were there any other
> >noteable composers who did not have perfect pitch.
> >
> >Jarl Sigurd
> >
> >to listen to a symphony composed by Jarl Sigurd
> >visit: http://geocities.com/Paris/Lights/3333
>
> have perfect pitch. Where did you read that Berlioz and Bruckner
> didn't? Is there any way to tell from listening to their music?
After reading all the postings about perfect pitch, I started to wonder
what it really means. If someone is said to have perfect pitch, does it
mean he/she can tell if a note is exactly 440 hz, i.e. that he/she would
be able to say that an A tuned to 439 was indeed A, but slightly flat,
or that one tuned to 441 is also A but slightly sharp? Or, in earlier
times, would a person with perfect pitch identify a note at 436 hz as
being a perfect A? - just wondering ...
What impreses me more than perfect pitch (which does impress me) is
that apparently some peopele can tell you exactly from the sound what
notes are depressed if I just press a random handful or two of piano
keys - in other words, not a normal chord but just a handful of notes.
Is that something many professional musicians can do?
Bill Pearce
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
MrPye
writes:
> What impreses me more than perfect pitch (which does impress me) is
>that apparently some peopele can tell you exactly from the sound what
>notes are depressed if I just press a random handful or two of piano
>keys - in other words, not a normal chord but just a handful of notes.
>Is that something many professional musicians can do?
>
At school a friend and I (neither with perfect pitch) would play clusters of
notes and challenge each other to sing the second from the bottom, third from
the top or whatever. Fortunately we both have more interesting things to do
these days, but it was a useful exercise. We couldn't name the individual notes
(so my apologies for not giving a completely relevant answer) but it trained us
to hear how chords are built up, and by extension what the intervals between
the notes were within those chords.
Don Groves
thusly:
>
> After reading all the postings about perfect pitch, I started to wonder
> what it really means. If someone is said to have perfect pitch, does it
> mean he/she can tell if a note is exactly 440 hz, i.e. that he/she would
> be able to say that an A tuned to 439 was indeed A, but slightly flat,
> or that one tuned to 441 is also A but slightly sharp? Or, in earlier
> times, would a person with perfect pitch identify a note at 436 hz as
> being a perfect A? - just wondering ...
> that apparently some peopele can tell you exactly from the sound what
> notes are depressed if I just press a random handful or two of piano
> keys - in other words, not a normal chord but just a handful of notes.
> Is that something many professional musicians can do?
>
I had a friend years ago who could do this. He had studied piano from
about age 3 and would go into the next room, tell someone to play a
random 10-note 'chord', and he would name the notes played instantly.
--
Don Groves
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> I had a friend years ago who could do this. He had studied piano from
> about age 3 and would go into the next room, tell someone to play a
> random 10-note 'chord', and he would name the notes played instantly.
I hope for the sake of his health that he then stayed in the next room.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
"Compassionate Conservatism?" * "Tight Slacks?" * "Jumbo Shrimp?"
Andrys D Basten
Don Groves <s...@my.sig> wrote:
>I had a friend years ago who could do this. He had studied piano from
>about age 3 and would go into the next room, tell someone to play a
>random 10-note 'chord', and he would name the notes played instantly.
Yes. The theory is (from a book called "Psychology of Music"
that they used at Stanford for years) that for child having an
affinity for musical memory, the sooner you start them the more
likely they'll have this particular form of memory. Between 5-6
years is the average age of starting piano lessons for those who
have perfect pitch. Those who are highly musical otherwise but
who started between 7-8 tended not to develop it.
If you have that, though, and musical training, naming the
notes in a chord played or playing the chord on a piano after
just hearing it (if you're a pianist) is no problem
It does come in handy, so to speak.
Dimitri Dover
has said anything about your intelligence or knowledge,
but I can understand that you sensed some abrasiveness
there. Things often seem snippy over e-mail.
As for people who blow off steam to those who
disagree with them: the best defense is to stick
to your guns. If you find your cartridge empty,
reload with bullets of well-informed opinion,
and you'll be ready the next time. :)
Besides, at the rate this thread was going,
I was afraid the Reilly-Cate act might take
over....
Dimitri
Nicholas Hamshaw wrote:
>
> I agree that this 'anecdote' proves nothing, but I have seen more than one
> article referring to the fact that Saint Saens had perfect pitch - none of
> which were using the story about the piano tuner as a basis for their
> reasoning. At no point have I decided that Saint Saens had this gift simply
> because of an anectode. It was a small comment about something that I thought
> was amusing. I'm quite aware the the 'parlour' trick you mention doesn't
> require perfect pitch.....I can do it myself (ooh that means it must be easy,
> since I'm soooooooo stupid and - how could I POSSIBLY think anything else? -
> inferior TO YOU).
>
> Anyway, I'm not sure why I should answer to your abrasiveness. The person who
> started this thread asked a question. In the true spirit of this news group I
> made a small contribution to the postings. Naturally, I would be glad to hear
> about evidence to the contrary, as that is the whole point about discussion.
> However, when someone leaps at your neck with comments such as yours, you
> begin to wonder why some people think that they have a divine right to
> consider others as being in some way inferior.
>
> I wonder if you have read a thread I started, entitled "Can we talk about
> recordings now", quite recently.......
>
> In that thread I groaned about people who, when they (often fairly enough)
> disagree with things that are written here, imply that the author of a
> posting is stupid or inadequate in some way. I was just waiting for a good
> flaming, so that we could all be amused to find out who the people who think
> they own the place are...........
>
> Everyone IS entitled to voice their opinions here, but I'm sure that the
> majority of people don't feel to happy about you people who are the only ones
> who are ever actually right.
>
> Since I based my comments on articles/radio discussions (one of which
> happened to include the anectode which will send me to hell), I though that
> it may be safe to give one possible answer to a question posed here.
> Obviously I was wrong.
>
> Just one question: Why do people who already know everything bother reading
> these news groups? I know.......it's so that they can make comments about
> other people's postings in such a way that they feel superior. Just what are
> you missing in your life if you need to walk all over someone who mentioned a
> small anecdote, in oreder to make yourself seem better?
>
> Nick Hamshaw
>
> Tom Duff wrote:
>
> > Nicholas Hamshaw wrote:
> > >
David Grosvenor
>In article <8ao4n8$jt6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, wppp...@my-deja.com spoke
>thusly:
>>
>> After reading all the postings about perfect pitch, I started to wonder
>> what it really means. If someone is said to have perfect pitch, does it
>> mean he/she can tell if a note is exactly 440 hz, i.e. that he/she would
>> be able to say that an A tuned to 439 was indeed A, but slightly flat,
>> or that one tuned to 441 is also A but slightly sharp? Or, in earlier
>> times, would a person with perfect pitch identify a note at 436 hz as
>> being a perfect A? - just wondering ...
>> What impreses me more than perfect pitch (which does impress me) is
>> that apparently some peopele can tell you exactly from the sound what
>> notes are depressed if I just press a random handful or two of piano
>> keys - in other words, not a normal chord but just a handful of notes.
>> Is that something many professional musicians can do?
>>
>> Bill Pearce
>
>about age 3 and would go into the next room, tell someone to play a
>random 10-note 'chord', and he would name the notes played instantly.
>Don Groves
When I was studying in Oregon, a fellow student did some work on perfect
pitch. I was asked to name groups of notes - about six, I seem to
remember, played simultaneously. I also remember being asked to discern
slight variations in pitch and found that I could, indeed, differentiate
between A:440, A:439 and A:441. I was not asked to count the vibrations,
of course(!) but could determine whether one was slightly sharper, etc.
The student used a frequency generator for the experiment.
When I was teaching in Essex, England, some years later I had one
11-year old boy who was almost illiterate, but who nevertheless had
perfect pitch. I used to play simple folk songs on the piano to have
the children in this remedial class sing along. One of my favourites
was "All through the Night" - a Welsh song. Normally I would play it in
G major, but for no particular reason, one week I played it in A flat.
This boy looked puzzled. I asked him what was wrong and he told me I
"was playing all the wrong notes". When I repeated it in G he said
"that's right now." He had no particular knowledge of music, but could
tell, a week apart, that the tune was a semitone higher.
--
David Grosvenor
K Cheung
>
> Yes. The theory is (from a book called "Psychology of Music"
>that they used at Stanford for years) that for child having an
>affinity for musical memory, the sooner you start them the more
>likely they'll have this particular form of memory. Between 5-6
>years is the average age of starting piano lessons for those who
>have perfect pitch. Those who are highly musical otherwise but
>who started between 7-8 tended not to develop it.
And we all know that there are exceptions.
I started learning violin when I was 9. I can
name with 100% accuracy any 4-note chord you play.
When it gets to more notes, it depends on how good
the piano sounds.
> It does come in handy, so to speak.
Only sometimes. There are times when perfect pitch
is irritating. I still can't stand those classical
recordings using period instruments tuned to an
A that lies between A (440Hz) and the G# below it.
--
Kevin.
--- kkhc...@math.uwaterloo.ca ---
http://www.grad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~kkhcheun
On a toujours assez de temps. One always has enough time.
Andrys D Basten
K Cheung <kkhc...@math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <8ap2pu$rqv$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,
>Andrys D Basten <and...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> Yes. The theory is (from a book called "Psychology of Music"
>>that they used at Stanford for years) that for child having an
>>affinity for musical memory, the sooner you start them the more
>>likely they'll have this particular form of memory. Between 5-6
>>years is the average age of starting piano lessons for those who
>>have perfect pitch. Those who are highly musical otherwise but
>>who started between 7-8 tended not to develop it.
>
>And we all know that there are exceptions.
Yah, so. That's why I said "the average age" and made sure it said,
"tended not to" - the word 'tend' being quite important.
>> It does come in handy, so to speak.
>
>Only sometimes. There are times when perfect pitch
>is irritating. I still can't stand those classical
>recordings using period instruments tuned to an
>A that lies between A (440Hz) and the G# below it.
For me it comes in handy 97% of the time. Playing a
voice-flute, that sounds in D, while reading in C can create a
problem until I adjust (it's harder adjusting up than down, for
me, but part of it is practice with early music where I must
adjust down).
But those of you with a less flexible type of perfect pitch
speak as if it is that feature alone that makes it irritating to
ear music played at the "wrong" pitch. It isn't. There are
several of us who play early music in A=415 or in A=397 and can
adjust. That's what I called 'fooling ourselves" into believing
that is 'A' for the time being. We actually then "hear" it as
A. I can't do it beyond 2 notes at all, while some can't
adjust even one note, but differences with this type of memory
really seem to vary.
Some have pp for "naming" notes but can't instantly transfer
the sounds they hear to their instruments, playing without
hesitations what they hear, even with musical training. As
you've seen, there are those who will sing a bit lower than
others because of their sense that an "A" should be lower (if
the origina piano that gave them their C was a bit flat) even
though in chorus, people should be singing the same pitch. OR,
if someone learned A=440 is thrown off merely because many
orhcestras today play in A=442.
Probably would make an interesting study since there are so
many misconceptions about what this is and its "limitations" for
some. The limitations are real but affects some and not
others...at least not to the degree it does some.
Others with pp not unduly held back by the slightly higher
pitches or other problems with pp are Ozawa, Mehta, Previn,
Kahane (L.A. Chamber Orchestra Director and Conductor of Santa
Rosa Symphony), and when he was still with us, Bernstein.
Andrys D Basten
David Grosvenor <da...@recorder-music.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <MPG.13397c1a...@news.web-ster.com>, Don Groves
>When I was studying in Oregon, a fellow student did some work on perfect
>pitch. I was asked to name groups of notes - about six, I seem to
>remember, played simultaneously. I also remember being asked to discern
>slight variations in pitch and found that I could, indeed, differentiate
>between A:440, A:439 and A:441. I was not asked to count the vibrations,
>of course(!) but could determine whether one was slightly sharper, etc.
>The student used a frequency generator for the experiment.
The book I referred to "Psychology of Music" used by Stanford
describes in detail the Seashore Study (I think that's the name
of it) from the 50s or so, in which they came into our
classrooms and gave us little contraptions and headphones. With
the odd little contraption we had to press buttons or something
to tell them whether a given second of two notes played was
flatter, sharper, or the same. Clever, that last. They wanted
to know how small a difference we could detect and of course
whether we could tell if the 2nd note was higher or lower. They
called me in to say I had the highest score in the school and
had further questions, and that's all I remember of it except
for their remarks on my poor teeth, and that part hasn't changed.
>When I was teaching in Essex, England, some years later I had one
>11-year old boy who was almost illiterate, but who nevertheless had
>perfect pitch. I used to play simple folk songs on the piano to have
>the children in this remedial class sing along. One of my favourites
>was "All through the Night" - a Welsh song. Normally I would play it in
>G major, but for no particular reason, one week I played it in A flat.
>This boy looked puzzled. I asked him what was wrong and he told me I
>"was playing all the wrong notes". When I repeated it in G he said
>"that's right now." He had no particular knowledge of music, but could
>tell, a week apart, that the tune was a semitone higher.
That's fascinating. Some singers I know, though, say that
they can tell pitches from how it affects their muscles when
they sing. If they have to sing a pitch higher, it makes a
difference to them.
Jeremy Cook
and...@netcom.com (Andrys D Basten) wrote:
> In article <8argn4$n4a$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>,
> K Cheung <kkhc...@math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> >In article <8ap2pu$rqv$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,
> >Andrys D Basten <and...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yes. The theory is (from a book called "Psychology of Music"
> >>that they used at Stanford for years) that for child having an
> >>affinity for musical memory, the sooner you start them the more
> >>likely they'll have this particular form of memory. Between 5-6
> >>years is the average age of starting piano lessons for those who
> >>have perfect pitch. Those who are highly musical otherwise but
> >>who started between 7-8 tended not to develop it.
For whatever it might be worth, here are my experiences with PP and
individuals I have met who have possessed it to one degree or another:
First of all, myself: I do not consider myself to have PP. However, I
often think of a composition I have played, and find that I can sing
the melody aloud, and then can go to the piano and strike the first
note correctly on the first try. This even occurs when I awaken from
having dreamt of a particular melody. But I usually cannot tell what
note is being played by ear, at random. Go figure!
Secondly, two fellow students from Tanglewood in 1979 (names have been
changed to protect the gifted!):
Student #1: Her mother was a musician and used to sit her on her lap
as an infant, playing melodies on the piano and speaking the names of
the notes as she went along. At the age of three, the daughter heard a
car in the driveway of the family home honking its horn, and correctly
named the note.
Student #2: He learned to play the piano by ear, and could play any
composition he had ever heard (or so it seemed - we could not stump
him). He could play not only the theme to any TV show we could name,
but also the incidental music! We would challenge him to play the them
from _Star Trek_, for example, and not only would he comply perfectly,
but he would then proceed to play the _music from fight scenes_, the
_music at the closing of the show_, the _music when something wryly
amusing happened_, etc. Amazing. And his ultimate goal was to be a
lounge pianist. I kid you not.
Teacher: Our teacher at Tanglewood was a brilliant Brazilian lady with
whom all of the guys (even some of the gay ones, I suspect!) fell in
love with. She spoke English peppered with Portuguese and German
interjections and inflections, and exuded the scent of intoxicatingly
sensuous European bath oils, which saturated our clothing by virtue of
proximity, and which we sighingly carried with us after our lessons.
But I digress! *ahem*.
Anyway, she related to us that she had perfect pitch, but only in equal
temperament according to standard European tuning conventions (a bit
higher than A=440, IIRC). She said that American tuning confused her a
bit, and she only sporadically experienced PP thereafter in the US.
Andrys D Basten
Jeremy Cook <jerem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>First of all, myself: I do not consider myself to have PP. However, I
>often think of a composition I have played, and find that I can sing
>the melody aloud, and then can go to the piano and strike the first
>note correctly on the first try. This even occurs when I awaken from
>having dreamt of a particular melody. But I usually cannot tell what
>note is being played by ear, at random. Go figure!
Musical memory can be odd. Maybe it works better when you're
not thinking about it.
>Student #1: Her mother was a musician and used to sit her on her lap
>as an infant, playing melodies on the piano and speaking the names of
>the notes as she went along. At the age of three, the daughter
>heard a car in the driveway of the family home honking its horn, and
>correctly named the note.
That's similar to what the Stanford book describes as likely.
Before I was 3 I liked try to match notes on the piano to what
I heard and that helped, obviously not in the naming of notes,
since I didn't know those until I was almost 6, but in learning
where the sounds were on the piano. Even So, though I left the
piano lessons at age 10 (my teacher didn't like students
ornamenting her duets ;-) ), I'm used to where any sounds would
be on the piano.
>Student #2: He learned to play the piano by ear, and could play any
>composition he had ever heard (or so it seemed - we could not stump
>him). He could play not only the theme to any TV show we could name,
>but also the incidental music!
That also takes a heck of a memory for the themes!
I did watch Twin Peaks and went to a party where they
requested this music, over and over again! I have no memory of
the themes anymore though.
> His ultimate goal was to be a lounge pianist. I kid you not.
My dad was one. Billie Holliday used to come in and hum along
with him. I used to think I wanted to become one. When all
you do is play songs, your goals don't reach a lot higher. But
then someone reminded me you need a personality for that ;-)
I always get a kick out of Lily Tomlin's lounge organist
routine.
>Anyway, she related to us that she had perfect pitch, but only in
>equal >temperament according to standard European tuning conventions
>(a bit >higher than A=440, IIRC). She said that American tuning
>confused her a bit, and she only sporadically experienced PP
>thereafter in the US.
That's curious to me, since with harpsichord we must tune in any
number of weird temperaments and we just think of resulting odd
intervals as lower or higher than they'd normally be. In the
most common temperaments the middle C to E must be flattened,
and with a slightly flattened G as well, you have a very CALM
sounding c major. It really ends pieces with a different feel.
Part of the calm effect is that the overtones in a harpsichord
are more obvious and if each interval is not "perfect" a beat is
set up. Depending on how far from 'perfect' you are, the beat
is slow to very rapid.
Equal temperament is not going to get you perfect intervals
and so the music in equal temperament on a harpsichord is very
noisy due to all the beats that are hearable even if people
can't separate them from what's going on.
To accompany people who are playing instruments they can't
adjust tuning on that easily, I tune closer to equal temperament
but still with some intervals quieted down.
Frank Prain
Andrys D Basten wrote in message <8arkn3$uj5$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
>In article <UNBXMAAQ...@recorder-music.demon.co.uk>,
>David Grosvenor <da...@recorder-music.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <MPG.13397c1a...@news.web-ster.com>, Don Groves
>><s...@my.sig> writes
>
>
>they can tell pitches from how it affects their muscles when
>they sing. If they have to sing a pitch higher, it makes a
>difference to them.
>
Funny you should be talking about this as I have just finished doing a
series of transpositions of Victoria's Tenebrae Responsories for a fellow
chorister (with near enough PP), as our choir is performing them a tone down
and it drives her crazy to see one pitch and have to sing another.
For my part (no PP) I agree with the above comment that often being asked to
sing a piece at a different pitch "feels wrong" -- all the more obvious if
it's moved more than a tone, say a minor third. It can often cause you to
overshoot the mark, as it were, because the written note would normally
"feel" higher or lower.
Frank Prain
Thomas Lefort
>
> That's fascinating. Some singers I know, though, say that
> they can tell pitches from how it affects their muscles when
> they sing. If they have to sing a pitch higher, it makes a
> difference to them.
>
I have quite a good relative pitch, but no perfect pitch. I supposed I
started the piano too late. Usually, when I have to recognize a note, I
sing it and the name of the note comes in my mind.
Moreover, I have partial skills with certain instruments and notes. For
instance, I perfectly recognize the pitch of an opening orchestral
tutti, most white keys on the piano, E, A and D on a guitar or a cello,
G on a flute, and so on. That's silly. Some other are less clear. Also,
when I hear some music in ancient (< 440) pitch, I realize it.
Obviously this is a matter of memory and I think I should do some
training. Finally, notice that not having full perfect pitch doesn't
disturb me when composing. It does'nt prevent me from imagining the
sounds ; it becomes a problem only when I have to notate a score.
TL
Peter T. Daniels
> (The only thing perfect pitch has ever bought me, aside from a few
> awestruck gazes at parties where I would would demonstrate the skill
> by guessing the notes on a piano with my eyes closed, was being out of
> tune all the time in orchestra rehearsals because the center of "my" A
> was slightly lower than 440Hz.)
Are you suggesting that was a *good* thing?
So far I've seen quite a few reasons why having "perfect pitch" would be
a considerable disadvantage in a performer; and I can't imagine why it
would be advantageous in a composer (as suggested by the original,
rather shocked query noting that Wagner, Berlioz, and (gasp!) Bruckner
didn't have it).
Considering the original poster, I suppose we're supposed to assume that
Furtwängler did. Makes the out-of-tune playing described here in so many
of his "great" recordings even more inexplicable, doesn't it.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Shimpei Yamashita
>
>Shimpei Yamashita wrote:
>
>> (The only thing perfect pitch has ever bought me, aside from a few
>> awestruck gazes at parties where I would would demonstrate the skill
>> by guessing the notes on a piano with my eyes closed, was being out of
>> tune all the time in orchestra rehearsals because the center of "my" A
>> was slightly lower than 440Hz.)
>
>Are you suggesting that was a *good* thing?
Hell no. I had hoped that would be obvious to the readers.
Actually, perfect pitch (I prefer to call my gift [1] "absolute pitch"
rather than "perfect") is useful in a variety of ways. It's just that
having perfect pitch is not always an unconditional plus for a musician.
>Considering the original poster, I suppose we're supposed to assume that
>Furtwängler did. Makes the out-of-tune playing described here in so many
>of his "great" recordings even more inexplicable, doesn't it.
Well, Furtwangler may have had perfect pitch, but that wouldn't
necessarily have prevented his second oboist from playing out of tune
from time to time....
[1] I have to call it a gift rather than a skill, since I never did
any work to acquire it--I actually grew up thinking that everybody had
perfect pitch until I was in high school and discovered that nobody
else in the band could tell what note the tuba player was trying to
play.
JarlSigurd
>
> Considering the original poster, I suppose we're supposed to assume that
> Furtwängler did. Makes the out-of-tune playing described here in so many
> of his "great" recordings even more inexplicable, doesn't it.
I never suggested that Furtwangler had perfect pitch. I merely
asked if anyone knew whether he did. Personally I'm rather inclined
to doubt that he had very good pitch at all. He was German after
all. Furtwangler's strength as a conductor is that he had a very
strong sense as to the aesthetics of sound, something that a lot
of other conductors sadly lack. I think that's part of the reason
for the controversy concerning Furtwangler's performances. Those
listeners with very good pitch will notice that some of his great
performances were "out of tune" and claim that other more "in tune"
conductors performed those pieces better. The general public,
most of whom do not have very good pitch perception, will not notice
that his performances are slightly "out of tone" but will focus
on the shear quality of the sounds and phrasings in Furtwangler's
performances, something in which he was second to none.
Jarl Sigurd
To listen to a symphony composed by Jarl Sigurd
visit: http://geocities.com/Paris/Lights/3333
samir ghiocel golescu
Furtwangler didn't have perfect pitch. Like many other great musicians, he
had a wonderful relative pitch.
BPO made a joke on one of his birthdays--they started the rehearsal playing
Eroica in E Major. After a little while, the conductor stopped and said
something sounded weird--the orchestra laughed, of course.
regards,
SG
Simon Roberts
: I never suggested that Furtwangler had perfect pitch. I merely
: asked if anyone knew whether he did. Personally I'm rather inclined
: to doubt that he had very good pitch at all. He was German after
: all.
?
Simon
Peter T. Daniels
> Well, Furtwangler may have had perfect pitch, but that wouldn't
> necessarily have prevented his second oboist from playing out of tune
> from time to time....
I _have_ sat through (ostensible) choral rehearsals where the conductor
browbeat a section into perfect intonation ... I'm thinking particularly
of a Verdi Requiem at Saratoga (then summer home of the Philadelphia
Orchestra) where the chorus -- Cornell University Glee Club and Chorus
and Singing Cities Choir of Albany, NY -- sat and sat and sat while
Ormandy kept yelling at the cellos.
And then there was the University of Chicago Chorus's chamber version of
Mendelssohn's Erste Walpurgisnacht where the conductor (the chorus
director) paid no attention to the intonation of the string quintet, and
sure enough in performance they weren't any better. (Though he was very
good at getting the chorus's intonation right.)
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > Considering the original poster, I suppose we're supposed to assume that
> > Furtwängler did. Makes the out-of-tune playing described here in so many
> > of his "great" recordings even more inexplicable, doesn't it.
>
> asked if anyone knew whether he did. Personally I'm rather inclined
> to doubt that he had very good pitch at all. He was German after
> strong sense as to the aesthetics of sound, something that a lot
> of other conductors sadly lack. I think that's part of the reason
> for the controversy concerning Furtwangler's performances. Those
> listeners with very good pitch will notice that some of his great
> performances were "out of tune" and claim that other more "in tune"
> conductors performed those pieces better. The general public,
> most of whom do not have very good pitch perception, will not notice
> that his performances are slightly "out of tone" but will focus
> on the shear quality of the sounds and phrasings in Furtwangler's
> performances, something in which he was second to none.
How would you know? We get the impression you've never listened to any
other conductor.
Peter T. Daniels
I should think pp would get in the way when you have to write out the
lines for the transposing instruments!
Jarl Sigurd
>How would you know? We get the impression you've never listened to any
>other conductor.
While it my be true that for the most part I don't OWN many
recordings by other conductors, I have listened to quite a
few. That's where having a library card comes in handy.
It allows you to listen to a variety of conductors and decide
which ones you don't like before you spend money on
them.
Jarl Sigurd
to listen to a symphony composed by Jarl Sigurd
visit: http://geocities.com/Paris/Lights/3333
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote
>
> >How would you know? We get the impression you've never listened to any
> >other conductor.
>
> While it my be true that for the most part I don't OWN many
> recordings by other conductors, I have listened to quite a
> few. That's where having a library card comes in handy.
> It allows you to listen to a variety of conductors and decide
> which ones you don't like before you spend money on
> them.
How very revealing that you say "which ones you don't like" rather than
"which ones you like."
Sure to Doubt
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:38D4D7...@worldnet.att.net...
Suggests high standards, yes.
David Grayshan
> (Snip)
>
> How very revealing that you say "which ones you don't like" rather than
> "which ones you like."
How very revealing of you to nit-pick like this.....
> (Snip)
David.
Peter T. Daniels
It's not a nitpick. Sigurd reveals his contempt for musicians in
general.
JarlSigurd
>
> Sigurd reveals his contempt for musicians in
> general.
Well, there might be something to that. As a composer,
I've succeeded in recording my symphonies without the
use of any musicians besides myself. I suspect this might
be the way of the future with many composers. If one
wants to work with musicians, one either has to pay them,
or enter into a creative partnership with them which
generally means compromising one's ideas. I would say
that I've found working with computers mush more satisfying
than I ever found working with musicians, not to mention
much more affordable. Chances are if it wasn't for recent
advances in computer technology, I wouldn't be composing at
all.
Jarl Sigurd
to listen to a symphony composed and recorded by Jarl
Sigurd, visit: http://geocities.com/Paris/Lights/3333
Bob Taffelsen
> Well, there might be something to that. As a composer,
> I've succeeded in recording my symphonies without the
> use of any musicians besides myself. I suspect this might
> be the way of the future with many composers. If one
> wants to work with musicians, one either has to pay them,
> or enter into a creative partnership with them which
> generally means compromising one's ideas. I would say
> that I've found working with computers mush more satisfying
> than I ever found working with musicians, not to mention
> much more affordable. Chances are if it wasn't for recent
> advances in computer technology, I wouldn't be composing at
> all.
I understand your bitterness, but let me tell you, as an orchestra
musician for several decades, that contact with performers can only
enhance your understanding of your own work. You'll see your ideas
reflected, bounced back to you by people with experience, perhaps with
far more experience than you. Even if an orchestra or other performing
group mishandles your music, you will learn in the process. Computers
are just an accessory: if you are making them the focus of your
music-making, you may be on a track of obsession and self-centeredness.
I've seen several talented composers go that way, and the results aren't
pretty. Music is participatory, it's a collective enterprise.
Take this as no more than a piece of advice from an old guy. By the way,
your stuff is good and deserves performances. If you play an instrument,
you could participate yourself in performances. That's the best
advertisement and, who knows (think Steve Reich) it may even feed you.
Cheers,
BobT
jbay...@hotmail.com
JarlS...@geocities.com wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > Sigurd reveals his contempt for musicians in
> > general.
>
> I've succeeded in recording my symphonies without the
> use of any musicians besides myself. I suspect this might
> be the way of the future with many composers. If one
> wants to work with musicians, one either has to pay them,
> or enter into a creative partnership with them which
> generally means compromising one's ideas. I would say
> that I've found working with computers mush more satisfying
> than I ever found working with musicians, not to mention
> much more affordable. Chances are if it wasn't for recent
> advances in computer technology, I wouldn't be composing at
> all.
Unfortunately, I think more and more composers will be forced to
resort to computer performances of their works, simply because
orchestras are increasingly unwilling to play works by contemporary
composers.
Most composers who had the option, I imagine, would choose to work
with an orchestra. At least I hope so. Even the greatest composers
had something to learn from the musicians who performed their works.
Usually scores are changed in important ways after the first
rehearsal/performance.
Are you telling us that if an orchestra approached you to premiere
one of your symphonies you would turn them down?
regards,
John
Samuel Vriezen
<taffel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Even if an orchestra or other performing
>group mishandles your music, you will learn in the process.
This was indeed my experience.
>Computers
>are just an accessory
The biggest problem I have with computers is, they make anything sound
good because they can perform anything. Live musicians often have to
understand the music, which means you have to think about how your
music can be understood, which will shape thought about form,
orchestration, melody and texture more than anything else might. For
live musicians you can't afford to write notes that have no function,
with computers that is not a problem at all.
>Music is participatory, it's a collective enterprise.
Not necessarily, I believe. I did hear some quite interesting tape
music. But the dangers of a medium that offers no resistance are
clear.
Samuel Vriezen
wrote:
>"If it sounds good, it IS good"- Duke ellington.
>
>No really, if electronics can perform anything and make it sound good, why
>write for live performers? Why be bound by the conceptual limitations of
>live musicians?
The answer in accordance with my first post would be, 'it's more
challenging!'.
In particular, I feel it makes no sense to use computers to write
something that sounds like acoustic music. Since the computer is
capable of anything, a composer must take pains to create something
idiomatic for the computer. And I feel that unless you're not bothered
about being redundant, you'd better produce something at least as
original as, say, the works of Conlon Nancarrow (and my picking this
composer is no coincidence either).
The second answer is, 'having people in front of you playing is more
spectacular': dramatically, because of the human element. Again,
mechanical or electronic music can be spectacular (Nancarrow again),
but it is a different kind of spectacular.
The third answer sums all of the previous up. I'm now learning a
rather difficult piano piece I wrote. I first made a computer
realization, but am now learning the piece for myself - which is a
whole lot more fun and teaches me much more about what I wrote. In the
piece I was concerned with everchanging patterns, that often repeat,
often repeat not exactly, and sometimes don't repeat at all, sometimes
interlock into larger, more complex patterns that may again repeat or
change. So there's a lot of repetition, but always of an 'active'
kind, not as part of some process: every note remains determined by
its particularities rather than being submerged in patterns and
tendencies. Thus, the piece tries to maximize structural expression.
Also, my piece is horrendously fast. Slowly learning the piece, I find
that all those micro-decisions, all those form-elements that I
consciously composed in the piece are now compressed to many, many
formal elements per second. As I play, I see my hands move extremely
quickly according to some elaborate choreography. This radically
heightens temporal awareness. It's much, much more gratifying to play
than to realize by computer (even though the computer results already
sounded impressive).
I feel that similar differences to that between active and passive
repetition are involved in the difference between, say, Xenakis' Herma
and Stockhausen's piano pieces. (say, nr. 1 or nr. 10). The former's
undifferentiated tissues require enormous virtuosity, but are less
precisely shaped than Stockhausen's thoroughly-composed textures; in
other words, there is less to express in Xenakis. Time becomes more
'flat'.
Similarly, process music starts being flat once you get the hang of it
and understand how it will develop. This flatness can sometimes be
used expressively again, as I believe happens in Andriessen's Hoketus,
where it reinforces a feeling of huge physical presence, or in a
performance of Vexations, where you start zooming in on tiny
differences; most of the time it will just be boring. OTOH, pieces
like 'piano phase' keep being interesting, because the stages that the
process passes sound so different from each other in an almost magical
way. I felt similar things in some pieces by Tom Johnson, for
instance.
Samuel Vriezen
>Most composers who had the option, I imagine, would choose to work
>with an orchestra.
I personally believe very small-scale chamber music today services the
interests of an advanced music much better than the sluggish
orchestras.
Dr.Matt
Or another take: For those of us in the West, the currency exchange
rates for Eastern Europe are highly favorable. What I spend on a small
breakfast might well feed a Bohemian string quartet for a week; what I
spend on groceries for a week might well feed a substantial orchestra
in Warsaw for a week. The result is a win-win situation for the people
involved, especially if the composer can win a grant for the project.
--
My CD "Kabala": http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/cd.html
Matt Fields DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox http://start.at/tttb
For spammers: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/uce.htm
More for spammers (thank you, NMSU!): http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/cgi-bin/meep
Samuel Vriezen
wrote:
>In article <38d67b70...@news.xs4all.nl>,
>Samuel Vriezen <s...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:00:04 GMT, jbay...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>Most composers who had the option, I imagine, would choose to work
>>>with an orchestra.
>>
>>I personally believe very small-scale chamber music today services the
>>interests of an advanced music much better than the sluggish
>>orchestras.
>
>Or another take: For those of us in the West, the currency exchange
>rates for Eastern Europe are highly favorable. What I spend on a small
>breakfast might well feed a Bohemian string quartet for a week; what I
>spend on groceries for a week might well feed a substantial orchestra
>in Warsaw for a week. The result is a win-win situation for the people
>involved, especially if the composer can win a grant for the project.
That depends. A Western or an Eastern grant?
Perhaps we should all start writing for African percussion ensembles?
Dana
<38D65C...@earthlink.net>...
> Jarl:
>
> > Well, there might be something to that. As a composer,
> > I've succeeded in recording my symphonies without the
> > use of any musicians besides myself. I suspect this might
> > be the way of the future with many composers. If one
> > wants to work with musicians, one either has to pay them,
> > or enter into a creative partnership with them which
> > generally means compromising one's ideas. I would say
> > that I've found working with computers mush more satisfying
> > than I ever found working with musicians, not to mention
> > much more affordable. Chances are if it wasn't for recent
> > advances in computer technology, I wouldn't be composing at
> > all.
>
> Computers
> are just an accessory: if you are making them the focus of your
> music-making, you may be on a track of obsession and self-centeredness.
<snip>
This isn't true. There are many composers who make their living using
nothing but computers and other electronica to write music for film and
television. This music doesn't use players at all.
I'm sort of reminded of Mr. Chariots of Fire Himself....
Dana
--
This is my e-mail address spelled out to prevent me from receiving internet
spam: cdjackson AT zoomtown DOT COM
> BobT
Ken Durling
<JarlS...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> Sigurd reveals his contempt for musicians in
>> general.
>
>Well, there might be something to that. As a composer,
>I've succeeded in recording my symphonies without the
>use of any musicians besides myself. I suspect this might
>be the way of the future with many composers. If one
>wants to work with musicians, one either has to pay them,
>or enter into a creative partnership with them which
>generally means compromising one's ideas. I would say
>that I've found working with computers mush more satisfying
>than I ever found working with musicians, not to mention
>much more affordable. Chances are if it wasn't for recent
>advances in computer technology, I wouldn't be composing at
>all.
>
>Jarl Sigurd
>
>to listen to a symphony composed and recorded by Jarl
>Sigurd, visit: http://geocities.com/Paris/Lights/3333
Well, I had an experience recently that I've been lucky enough to have
a few other times, and that is an absolutely top-notch performance of
a piece by a great player, and one who had conferred intelligently and
sympathetically with me about her performance of my piece. . Not only
is that a reward in and of itself, but hearing my music in the company
of other composers on a recital - *before an audience* - is an
experience that is tremendously rewarding. In this particularly case
the piece was for cello, and the performer programmed the Debussy
Sonata right after my piece. The Debussy is one of my personal icons,
and to be placed next to it on a program is an experience that I
wouldn't trade a thousand Pentiums for.
Of course I've also had the abysmal performance by clueless players,
and THAT is enough to make me re-invent the torture rack.
For what it's worth, I ALSO like to compose for non-human produced
sounds, concrete, processed, sequenced, whatever, but the soul of
music lives in performance to me.
Just my take.
Ken Durling
Dr.Matt
for a musician to have contempt for all musicians.
Dana
feed -- and no, I won't use the word 'racist' -- stereotypes?
Do yourself a favor and take a trip to several African countries and you
will find many people there to as middle-class -- and even upper-middle
class -- as all get-out.
Dana
--
This is my e-mail address spelled out to prevent me from receiving internet
spam: cdjackson AT zoomtown DOT COM
Samuel Vriezen <s...@xs4all.nl> wrote in article
<38d68678...@news.xs4all.nl>...
Dr.Matt
For USD 50000, you can get either: a professional-level audio production
system, or an eastern European orchestra rehearsed for a recording of about an
hour of music (with an eastern European recording engineer).
At the moment, philanthropists are more likely to chip in for the latter.
But you can reuse the former over and over again...
The former sounds great. The latter sounds really good.
The former has intelligence and can add musicality to anything.
The latter has precision and will add any musicality you quantify for it.
From here, where can we go? Well, the "Perfect" electronic orchestra
could come out on a credit card for USD 120... or the lights could go out
with worldwide brownouts (which would really put a cramp in hospitals,
not to mention art)...
In the 23d century, art will be performed on electrodes...ugh, let's
not go there, please.
Dr.Matt
Dana <SeeMyS...@TheBottom.com> wrote:
>Yes, there is poverty on the African continent, but must we CONSTANTLY
A little pause here. There's middle and upper class in Czeska and Slovska
and Polska and Hungary and Russia and Armenia and Bulgaria and Roumania,
too. It's the exchange rate that does the trick for westerners. You can
get a fine meal for two in downtown Prague for what--at local wages--is
equivalent to about USD 30, but it just happens to be the amount of Czech
money that about USD 8 is exchanged for.
Folks who want to write for African percussion ensembles would do well
to go do doctorates at African universities (per Steve Reich).
Jan Winter
is the idea of him putting very meticiously all those holes in the
piano roll knowing (I suppose) how it would sound if played back.
Music composed on the computer makes sense for me if you want to
create sounds that are unheard. That can not be reproduced by human
beings.
It reminds me of the way I "instant composed" my "Muziek 1-4 voor
Goedkoop Casio Keyboard" twenty or so years ago. Unheard indeed.
--
Regards, Jan Winter, Amsterdam
(j.wi...@xs4all.nl)
Greg Beaver
"JarlSigurd" <JarlS...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:38D65A...@geocities.com...
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > Sigurd reveals his contempt for musicians in
> > general.
>
> Well, there might be something to that. As a composer,
> I've succeeded in recording my symphonies without the
> use of any musicians besides myself. I suspect this might
> be the way of the future with many composers. If one
> wants to work with musicians, one either has to pay them,
> or enter into a creative partnership with them which
> generally means compromising one's ideas. I would say
First of all, I don't know which composers you have been conversing with,
but I have yet to meet any who are not excited to collaborate with good
musicians.
Second, perhaps you need to work on your people skills. If you can't get
musicians who are good enough to play your works, that is your problem,
because there is a surplus of skilled musicians today. To meet these people
does require the opposite of contempt.
> that I've found working with computers mush more satisfying
> than I ever found working with musicians, not to mention
> much more affordable. Chances are if it wasn't for recent
> advances in computer technology, I wouldn't be composing at
> all.
I find this last part the most interesting. I have only been paid twice for
performances of new music, and have commissioned many works that I spent
months learning and attempting to master. Not only that, but as early as
next summer, my quartet is PAYING a composer to write us a piece, and we
will perform it with the highest level we can. If you find that you have to
pay people to perform your work, that should send you a message,
loud and clear.
Greg Beaver
--
The Chiara String Quartet
http://www.chiaraquartet.net
Kip Williams
> Similarly, process music starts being flat once you get the hang of it
> and understand how it will develop. This flatness can sometimes be
> used expressively again, as I believe happens in Andriessen's Hoketus,
> where it reinforces a feeling of huge physical presence, or in a
> performance of Vexations, where you start zooming in on tiny
> differences; most of the time it will just be boring. OTOH, pieces
> like 'piano phase' keep being interesting, because the stages that the
> process passes sound so different from each other in an almost magical
> way. I felt similar things in some pieces by Tom Johnson, for
> instance.
Is any of his music available on the web? I am familiar only with
his "Four-Note Opera," and consider myself a fan of at least that
piece.
--
--Kip (Williams)
amusing the world at http://members.home.net/kipw/
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
>
> Is any of his music available on the web? I am familiar only with
> his "Four-Note Opera," and consider myself a fan of at least that
> piece.
http://kalvos.org/johnson.html
--
Dennis Báthory-Kitsz
MaltedMedia: http://maltedmedia.com/
Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar: http://kalvos.org/
The Transitive Empire: http://maltedmedia.com/empire/
OrbitAccess Accessibility Project: http://orbitaccess.com/
No Money: Lullaby for Bill Gates ... and other mp3's:
http://www.mp3.com/bathory/
No Name
>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 19:42:48 GMT, fie...@login.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <38d67b70...@news.xs4all.nl>,
>>Samuel Vriezen <s...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:00:04 GMT, jbay...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Most composers who had the option, I imagine, would choose to work
>>>>with an orchestra.
>>>
>>>I personally believe very small-scale chamber music today services the
>>>interests of an advanced music much better than the sluggish
>>>orchestras.
>>
>>Or another take: For those of us in the West, the currency exchange
>>rates for Eastern Europe are highly favorable. What I spend on a small
>>breakfast might well feed a Bohemian string quartet for a week; what I
>>spend on groceries for a week might well feed a substantial orchestra
>>in Warsaw for a week. The result is a win-win situation for the people
>>involved, especially if the composer can win a grant for the project.
>
>That depends. A Western or an Eastern grant?
>
>Perhaps we should all start writing for African percussion ensembles?
Although it is not such a bad idea (I have seen what Botswanaian teenagers
can do with two marimbas and a few drums) if you want to stick to
more western traditional groups, the working with 3rd world
orchestras is a real posibility, specialy in today's Interneted world.
In Mexico City for example there are several orchestras which I am sure
will give a try to modern works (I would think the one of the National
Conservatory would do it). Actually they don't cost anything, so if they
could get any money at all would drive them insane out of joy. There
are other smaller ensambles that perform in a semi-professional fashion,
so composers which would like the real thing can have it.
So I imagine a composer e-maling the score, then getting back a video
(via the net or a writable CD-ROM, or even, gulp, a videotape) so
she can make comments and adjustments.
Just dreaming.
Samuel Vriezen
wrote:
>Yes, there is poverty on the African continent, but must we CONSTANTLY
>feed -- and no, I won't use the word 'racist' -- stereotypes?
>
>Do yourself a favor and take a trip to several African countries and you
>will find many people there to as middle-class -- and even upper-middle
>class -- as all get-out.
>
>
>Dana
Seem to have tickled someone PC spot.
There's poverty in Holland as well. There's everything of every kind
in every part of everything, as was already known to Anaxagoras.
JarlSigurd
>
> JarlS...@geocities.com wrote
> > If one
> > wants to work with musicians, one either has to pay them,
> > or enter into a creative partnership with them which
> > generally means compromising one's ideas. I would say
> > than I ever found working with musicians, not to mention
> > much more affordable.
> Are you telling us that if an orchestra approached you to premiere
> one of your symphonies you would turn them down?
No. I wouldn't turn them down if they approached me, though
I think my compositions would require drastic re-orchestration
if an orchestra were ever to be able to perform them. At present
they are orchestrated for General Midi, which involves a different
set of principles than orchestrating for an orchestra.
Still I think the chances of an orchestra approaching me
is highly unlikely at this point in time. One of the nice things
about computers and the internet is that they allow unknown
composers to record their works and give them exposure.
Jarl Sigurd
to listen to a symphony composed by Jarl Sigurd
visit: http://geocities.com/Paris/Lights/3333
JarlSigurd
>
> We're at an interesting crossroads in musical economics now.
> For USD 50000, you can get either: a professional-level audio production
> system, or an eastern European orchestra rehearsed for a recording of about an
> hour of music (with an eastern European recording engineer).
> At the moment, philanthropists are more likely to chip in for the latter.
> But you can reuse the former over and over again...
> The former sounds great. The latter sounds really good.
> The former has intelligence and can add musicality to anything
This is one of the big mistakes people make when they
use computers in making music. To make it sound like
music, you have to get away from precision and quantization,
something which is entirely possible. It just requires a
different type of programming. One has to find ways of
Furtwanglerizing a computer score rather than Toscaninizing
it, if one wants to make it sound realistic. That's one
of the reasons I use a guitar when I record rather than a
keyboard or a sequencer.
JarlSigurd
>
>perhaps you need to work on your people skills. If you can't get
> musicians who are good enough to play your works, that is your problem,
> because there is a surplus of skilled musicians today. To meet these people
> does require the opposite of contempt.
> If you find that you have to
> pay people to perform your work, that should send you a message,
> loud and clear.
I think a lot of this depends on where you live. Skilled
musicians are not evenly divided throughout the world's
population. They tend to congregate in certain places
and not others.
Also the cost of living, which varies from place to
place, has a lot to do with. Where the cost of living
is low, musicians have more leisure on their hands and
can indulge in "pro bonum" activities. Where the cost
of living is high, as is the case in most of the Western
world, musicians are forced to either hire themselves out
to the highest bidder or take day jobs which can leave
them with little time for leisurely musical pursuits.
I'm not sure what it's like where you live, but around
here it's hard get even a small chunk of a skilled
musician's time unless you offer them financial incentive.
evan johnson
:I deeply agree with that. Me too could have never composed anything
:without computers. The best parts :
:
:1)You don't have to know reading stave, I always have problem with
:that.
:2)You don't need to develop any technique playing instruments of any
:kind.
:3)No limitatioin of the types of instruments, you can invent a
:instrument.
No, but you do have to have just as much musical craft, experience,
and judgement, which is unfortunately extremely hard to come by
without being able to "read stave."
A lot of people whose web sites I've seen seem to think that the fact
that one can replace actual performers with MIDI means that one can
also do away with any musical technique.
Evan
Remove everything between '@' and 'yale' to reply.
evan johnson
<JarlS...@geocities.com> wrote:
: That's one
:of the reasons I use a guitar when I record rather than a
:keyboard or a sequencer.
:
:Jarl Sigurd
Not that it makes any difference once the MIDI controller gets ahold
of the data.
evan johnson
<JarlS...@geocities.com> wrote:
: Still I think the chances of an orchestra approaching me
:is highly unlikely at this point in time. One of the nice things
:about computers and the internet is that they allow unknown
:composers to record their works and give them exposure.
Perhaps, but I can't help feeling that this "exposure" is exposure of
the most worthless sort. How can you say that the exposure one gets
from having a MIDI file on a website is comparable to the exposure one
gets from having a piece on an actual program of actual music by
actual performers with an actual audience?
Kyle
without computers. The best parts :
1)You don't have to know reading stave, I always have problem with
that.
2)You don't need to develop any technique playing instruments of any
kind.
3)No limitatioin of the types of instruments, you can invent a
instrument.
Kyle
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.shinestudio.com/ with the art of Myst
Samuel Vriezen
It's what capitalists call democracy, Evan...
Dr.Matt
>I deeply agree with that. Me too could have never composed anything
>without computers. The best parts :
>
>1)You don't have to know reading stave, I always have problem with
>that.
Well, not all of us have dyslexia. It's not such a big deal, really.
>2)You don't need to develop any technique playing instruments of any
>kind.
Come to think of it, pencils actually can be used for musical instruments.
Somewhere on my shelves I have this really great piece by a fellow named
Way who was then an English major---the piece is for four people with pencils.
>3)No limitatioin of the types of instruments, you can invent a
>instrument.
Kinda...It'll take you an investment of effort, same as always.
Check out Harry Partch's instruments.
Dr.Matt
evan johnson <evan.j...@eliyale.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 09:45:02 -0800, JarlSigurd
><JarlS...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>
>: Still I think the chances of an orchestra approaching me
>:is highly unlikely at this point in time. One of the nice things
>:about computers and the internet is that they allow unknown
>:composers to record their works and give them exposure.
>
>Perhaps, but I can't help feeling that this "exposure" is exposure of
>the most worthless sort. How can you say that the exposure one gets
>from having a MIDI file on a website is comparable to the exposure one
>gets from having a piece on an actual program of actual music by
>actual performers with an actual audience?
Perhaps the virtual and the virtuous are not the same. Richard
Hoffmann, one of the earliest users of computer music, used to joke
that soon we would have computer audiences. Model 1, however, would
lack proprioception and so the hands would fail to meet when they clapped.
Samuel Vriezen
johnson) wrote:
>A lot of people whose web sites I've seen seem to think that the fact
>that one can replace actual performers with MIDI means that one can
>also do away with any musical technique.
One can. What would you care? The upshot may be thoughtless
mediocrity, but if that makes them happy...
BTW, I insist on being amazed by Cage's last works which I have often
been pontificating about. First, they sound marvellous; second,
composing them requires even less musical technique than all that
computer shit does. Why can Cage do away with musical technique and
achieve amazing results while most people are just happy not to have
to 'read stave' and compose blandities? Perhaps this is a clue to what
Cage meant by 'Discipline'?
Dr.Matt
Cage had forgotton more musical technique than a lot of people ever learn.
I get fugal stuff in my music just cuz it feels good; other people seem to
think it's this Big Impressive Intellectual Technique, sorta like
conjugating verbs.
evan johnson
wrote:
:On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 18:33:05 GMT, evan.j...@eliyale.edu (evan
:johnson) wrote:
:
:>On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 09:45:02 -0800, JarlSigurd
:><JarlS...@geocities.com> wrote:
:>
:>
:>: Still I think the chances of an orchestra approaching me
:>:is highly unlikely at this point in time. One of the nice things
:>:about computers and the internet is that they allow unknown
:>:composers to record their works and give them exposure.
[ouch, i snipped myself]
:It's what capitalists call democracy, Evan...
Nobody ever said it was a priori a bad thing. All I said (or, at
least, meant to say) is that I am suspicious of Mr. Sigurd's (implied)
sentiment that this web-based "exposure" will, in its current form,
ever substitute for the "real thing."
Samuel Vriezen
johnson) wrote:
>:It's what capitalists call democracy, Evan...
>
>Nobody ever said it was a priori a bad thing. All I said (or, at
>least, meant to say) is that I am suspicious of Mr. Sigurd's (implied)
>sentiment that this web-based "exposure" will, in its current form,
>ever substitute for the "real thing."
Vee Kapitalists hef vays of making sings rrreeel!
Jarl Sigurd
evan johnson wrote
> I can't help feeling that this "exposure" is exposure of
>the most worthless sort. How can you say that the exposure one gets
>from having a MIDI file on a website is comparable to the exposure one
>gets from having a piece on an actual program of actual music by
>actual performers with an actual audience
A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. At the present time
having a peice of music on an actual program of actual
music by actual performers with an actual audience
is a a bird in the bush as far as I'm concerned.
Btw, my symphony is posted in mp3 form not a midifile
Jarl Sigurd
evan johnson wrote
>: That's one
>:of the reasons I use a guitar when I record rather than a
>:keyboard or a sequencer.
>:
>:Jarl Sigurd
>
>Not that it makes any difference once the MIDI controller gets ahold
>of the data.
It makes a difference in terms of the midi data that is created,
specifcally in the areas of duration and velocity. With a sequencer,
every note you enter into a midi file is automatically quantized.
With a keyboard, the notes have velocity and durational values
in accordance with how the keyboard is preset and how long
the player arbitrarily opts to hold down a particularly key. With
a guitar, duration and velocity is not arbitrary but rather a
byproduct of the acoustic properties of the wood the guitar
is made of. Because of this duration and velocity values follow
a more natural order and the music has a more realistic, "human"
feel.
Jarl Sigurd
to experience the "human feel" of my midi guitar
symphony visit: http://geocities.com/Paris/Lights/3333
Dr.Matt
Uh, yeah, web exposure is not at all like the real thing.
The real thing wants breakfast in the morning.
Peter T. Daniels
> >On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 09:45:02 -0800, JarlSigurd
> ><JarlS...@geocities.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >: Still I think the chances of an orchestra approaching me
> >:is highly unlikely at this point in time. One of the nice things
> >:about computers and the internet is that they allow unknown
> >:composers to record their works and give them exposure.
> >
> >the most worthless sort. How can you say that the exposure one gets
> >from having a MIDI file on a website is comparable to the exposure one
> >gets from having a piece on an actual program of actual music by
>
> Perhaps the virtual and the virtuous are not the same. Richard
> Hoffmann, one of the earliest users of computer music, used to joke
> that soon we would have computer audiences. Model 1, however, would
> lack proprioception and so the hands would fail to meet when they clapped.
A hit! A palpable hit!
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Dr.Matt wrote:
> >
> > We're at an interesting crossroads in musical economics now.
> > For USD 50000, you can get either: a professional-level audio production
> > system, or an eastern European orchestra rehearsed for a recording of about an
> > hour of music (with an eastern European recording engineer).
> > At the moment, philanthropists are more likely to chip in for the latter.
> > But you can reuse the former over and over again...
> > The former sounds great. The latter sounds really good.
> > The former has intelligence and can add musicality to anything
> > The latter has precision and will add any musicality you quantify for it.
>
> This is one of the big mistakes people make when they
> use computers in making music. To make it sound like
> music, you have to get away from precision and quantization,
> something which is entirely possible. It just requires a
> different type of programming. One has to find ways of
> Furtwanglerizing a computer score rather than Toscaninizing
> of the reasons I use a guitar when I record rather than a
> keyboard or a sequencer.
Even the conductor he *doesn't* like has been dead for nearly half a
century!!
Chloe Pajerek
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > Sigurd reveals his contempt for musicians in
> > general.
>
> Well, there might be something to that. As a composer,
> I've succeeded in recording my symphonies without the
> use of any musicians besides myself. I suspect this might
> be the way of the future with many composers. If one
> wants to work with musicians, one either has to pay them,
> or enter into a creative partnership with them which
> generally means compromising one's ideas.
Well, I've done it both ways, and I have to say that Mr. Sigurd
is missing something. It's true that a composer might have to
"compromise" in working with other musicians, but that's not
the only possibility.
First, there is the very real possibility that other musicians
may have ideas to contribute, even if only by way of interpretation,
that enhance the final product.
Secondly, working with others can tighten up the editing process,
resulting in less self-indulgence.
> Jarl Sigurd
- Chloe
Samuel Vriezen
wrote:
>Cage had forgotton more musical technique than a lot of people ever learn.
I like that one.
>I get fugal stuff in my music just cuz it feels good; other people seem to
>think it's this Big Impressive Intellectual Technique, sorta like
>conjugating verbs.
Hey! I like that one as well. I fear I may be on the other side of
this issue much of the time, Matt, because this is exactly what I feel
like when I hear a composer do a fugue after the general pause in the
symphonic allegro. Especially on the strings. You hear three entries,
sit back, munch your popcorn waiting for the 1st violin to do their
circus show... I really like the conjugating verbs bit...
I still like much of fugal technique, though, but I always feel it has
to sort of be not a fugue as well. But perhaps I should see a shrink
about my fugues.
Dr.Matt
Check out the work of Pacchioni on the web. A fugue for old fugue's
sake can be wonderful, so long as it's still a piece of music and not
a boring catalog of techniques the composer has mastered for making
little sections. What's the difference? Well, I suppose a catalog
like that can be cute in small doses but if it isn't also somehow
exciting, intriguing, frightening, soothing, or just dang groovy then
what's it doing there?
David Olen Baird
<JarlS...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> Sigurd reveals his contempt for musicians in
>> general.
>
>Well, there might be something to that. As a composer,
>I've succeeded in recording my symphonies without the
>use of any musicians besides myself. I suspect this might
>be the way of the future with many composers. If one
>wants to work with musicians, one either has to pay them,
>or enter into a creative partnership with them which
>generally means compromising one's ideas. I would say
>that I've found working with computers mush more satisfying
>than I ever found working with musicians, not to mention
>much more affordable. Chances are if it wasn't for recent
>advances in computer technology, I wouldn't be composing at
>all.
Working with computers is has its rewards, I must admit.
However, getting together with real-live musicians is extremely
rewarding. You get new ideas from them. You can make real industry
contacts that are valuable beyond anything else you are likely to do.
There is nothing more rewarding than having another musician who is
throroughly familiar with your work tell you they appreciate it. It's
fun. You have the feeling of real accomplishment when you work
together to create a performance. You can have a big party at the
premieres.
Try it. You'll like it.
<><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
vist the Garden Suite page at:
http://www.tfs.net/~davbaird/tgs.htm
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
---
David Olen Baird, Composer
mailto:davb...@tfs.net
http://www.tfs.net/~davbaird/
Ken Moore
>Hey! I like that one as well. I fear I may be on the other side of
>this issue much of the time, Matt, because this is exactly what I feel
>like when I hear a composer do a fugue after the general pause in the
>symphonic allegro. Especially on the strings. You hear three entries,
>sit back, munch your popcorn waiting for the 1st violin to do their
>circus show... I really like the conjugating verbs bit...
>
>I still like much of fugal technique, though, but I always feel it has
>to sort of be not a fugue as well. But perhaps I should see a shrink
>about my fugues.
How do you like the one in the slow movement of the Eroica (strictly
speaking a fugato, because of some element omitted)?
--
Ken Moore
k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
Web site: http://www.hpsl.demon.co.uk/