CLASSICAL Archives

Moderated Classical Music List

CLASSICAL@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Steve Schwartz <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 5 Apr 2000 10:39:52 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines)
Len Fehskens replies to me:

>Let's see if Steve Schwartz statement makes good sense, after a more or
>less by rote replacement of "repeat" by "note":
>
>   "What I have been saying is that it takes absolutely no musical insight
>   at all to play a note simply because the composer put it there.  I want
>   to know what the *musical* reason is - that is, based on the music so
>   far and the music in totality and the note in itself to be played, what
>   does the note contribute other than simply make the work longer?"

Hell, let's replace the word "note" by "clarinet." What's your point?
If you're trying to get me to admit that I'm working with a hierarchy
of signs, I admit it freely:  "note" seems to me more fundamental than
"repeat."

Even so, the statement as you've changed it doesn't strike me as "bad"
sense.  You ask those questions (or at least I hope so) every time you hear
a piece.  In fact, it may even be a criterion by which you judge a work.

Steve Schwartz

ATOM RSS1 RSS2