Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:15928 rec.music.misc:12895 Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,rec.music.misc Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu!dudek From: dudek@csri.toronto.edu (Gregory Dudek) Subject: Re: NEW! A MIDI notation program that THINKS?! Message-ID: <8805122209.AA04019@darcy.csri.toronto.edu> Followup-To: rec.music.misc Keywords: music notation recording preservation Organization: University of Toronto, CSRI References: <678@atux01.UUCP> <673@atux01.UUCP> <157@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu> <52563@sun.uucp> Date: Thu, 12 May 88 16:49:58 EDT 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