landman%hanami@Sun.COM (Howard A. Landman) (05/10/88)
This doesn't belong in comp.sys.mac anymore, so I've directed followups to rec.music. >In article <157@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu>, czei@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu (Michael S. Czeiszperger) writes: >> I hope it will stop this strange facination with musical notation. >> Learning music notation doesn't make you a musician or composer any more >> than learning how to type makes you a novelist. In article <678@atux01.UUCP> jlc@atux01.UUCP (J. Collymore) writes: >If you read the May (?) issue of Keyboard magazine near the front there is an >article on DMS (Disposable Music Syndrome). The author asserts that most of >the music nowadays (because of the heavy use of sequencers and computers) does >NOT require (and he's right) that the composer of the music know how to read >or write music. Brian Eno once observed (in a talk at UC Berkeley a few years ago) that prior to the advent of recording technology, the composer was in the position of the architect. That is, he couldn't create music himself, he could only create instructions for *other* people to create the music. Standard musical notation is thus somewhat like an architect's blueprints. You have to trust to the skill and intelligence of the performer (builder) and hope that they can correctly implement your concepts. With recording, this becomes unnecessary. The composer is now in the position of a sculptor or painter, and is able to directly work with sound itself. As one rather extreme example, there is a "dub" producer in Jamaica who made a master rhythm tape containing several different drum and bass tracks, and who has made literally dozens of different records from this same master. By varying the speed, mixing differently, adding a dash of reverb here, some echo there, and then putting different lyrics and singers on top of it, he has produced songs that are nowhere near identical to the ear. As another example, in two different songs Eno recorded multiple guitar solos for the same break (e.g. in "China My China" with Phil Manzanera), one in each octave, and then rapidly and randomly switched between them. The result is a solo filled with 2-octave leaps that could only be played by someone with 20-inch-wide hands! It would be possible to write this down on paper, but what would be the point? With computer programs it becomes even easier to compose music which no human could ever perform. >most novice/aspiring composers these days can expect that ... their music >will only be a fading memory in a few decades (unless they are lucky enough >to have their music recorded on longer lived vinyl records). CDs are far longer lived, and writable CDs and DAT are just around the corner. So this problem is going to go away long before it even really becomes a problem. Even now, you can have 500 CDs complete with folder and packaging made for under $3,000. How much would it cost to hire someone to transcribe 40 to 60 minutes of music from watching the performers? How long would it take? >We are able today to hear, enjoy and perform the music of 500+ years ago >primarily because SOMEONE took the time to learn, and then write down, the >musical notation. This is because the primary way that music was transmitted in that time was through musical notation. Earlier, the primary means was essentially oral tradition (you listen, you play). Clearly we have to be grateful that any music from this period survived at all. But we now have much better methods of transmittal available, and the period when musical notation was useful is ending. Today, the primary way the music is transmitted is through recordings. In the future, it may be something like MIDI scores or even computer software. I consider Wilhelm Furtwangler to have been a master conductor of Beethoven, and Bruno Walter an inept bungler by comparison. Yet by your standards, they're playing exactly the same music! Doesn't this tell you that musical notation is missing something? As an exercise, try writing the first few seconds of "Reflections" as performed by Diana Ross & the Supremes, or the bells portion of "Time" by Pink Floyd (Dark Side of the Moon), in standard musical notation. >Now if all you're interested in is short-term fame and fortune while you're >alive and don't give a damn about being remembered a generation or more after >your death, fine. But if you'd like to possibly have the fruits of your musical >labors and talent live on, either learn to read and write music, or at least >get someone or SOMETHING that can write it down for you!! This is fine advice to someone who lived 100 years ago, but it just doesn't make much sense today, and it won't make any sense at all 20 years from now unless something like nuclear war drives us back to middle ages. As much as I enjoy detailed tablature of songs by The Grateful Dead and Missisippi John Hurt, or the score of Beethoven's 9th, I would far prefer to have them in some kind of machine-readable format. The main reason to write in musical notation today is to communicate with classical musicians, or make use of them. If this is important to you, like it is to Frank Zappa, then fine. Otherwise, there's not much point. Howard A. Landman landman@hanami.sun.com UUCP: sun!hanami!landman
dudek@csri.toronto.edu (Gregory Dudek) (05/12/88)
In article <52563@sun.uucp> you write: >>In article <157@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu>, czei@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu (Michael S. Czeiszperger) writes: [ lots of stuff deleted here & there ] >>> I hope it will stop this strange facination with musical notation. >>> Learning music notation doesn't make you a musician or composer any more >>> than learning how to type makes you a novelist. > >In article <678@atux01.UUCP> jlc@atux01.UUCP (J. Collymore) writes: >>If you read the May (?) issue of Keyboard magazine near the front there is an >>article on DMS (Disposable Music Syndrome). The author asserts that most of >>the music nowadays (because of the heavy use of sequencers and computers) does >>NOT require (and he's right) that the composer of the music know how to read >>or write music. > > >>We are able today to hear, enjoy and perform the music of 500+ years ago ======= >>primarily because SOMEONE took the time to learn, and then write down, the >>musical notation. > >This is because the primary way that music was transmitted in that time was >through musical notation. Earlier, the primary means was essentially oral >tradition (you listen, you play). Clearly we have to be grateful that any >music from this period survived at all. But we now have much better methods >of transmittal available, and the period when musical notation was useful is >ending. Today, the primary way the music is transmitted is through recordings. >In the future, it may be something like MIDI scores or even computer software. > ... > >The main reason to write in musical notation today is to communicate with >classical musicians, or make use of them. If this is important to you, >like it is to Frank Zappa, then fine. Otherwise, there's not much point. > What baloney! The advantage of written musical notations is, to a large extent, so someone else can PERFORM the music EITHER for their own satisfaction or to express in in new ways. This implies the very satisfying process of playing the process "manually." For this, written musical notation is still desirable and has no real contenders. Your argument would have us do away with books and written media since all plays and texts could just be acted out & videotaped by the author. Furthermore, MIDI, for one, just doesn't allow certain types of expression to be transmitted. Don't forget there's a lot in the interpretation of a piece of music. As an art form, much of the art is on the part of the performer(s), as well as the composer, and many such artists don't compose at all. Would you claim these non-composing performers are now obsolete? For some further reflections this theme, check out: F. Richard Moore, "The Dysfunctions of MIDI", Computer Music Journal, 12, 1, Spring 1988. Followups should probably be directed to rec.music.misc (or rec.music.synth?) Greg Dudek -- Dept. of Computer Science (vision group) University of Toronto Reasonable mailers: dudek@ai.toronto.edu Other UUCP: {uunet,ihnp4,decvax,linus,pyramid, dalcs,watmath,garfield,ubc-vision,calgary}!utai!dudek ARPA: user%ai.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net