suppose you heard of a new symphony by whoozits.

unless you were there to listen it in person, how could you have known
about it?

if exchange of info was so slow back then, how come they created so
much great music?

is too much availability bad for art? are today's artists drowned and
flooded by too much and therefore unable to concentrate on the inner
voice?

i heard orson welles wasn't a movie fan before he made citizen kane.

but so many of today's movie geeks have seen everything and they know
NOTHING about life or themselves or the world but just movies, movies,
and movies.
same with music.

Perhaps it may amaze you to learn that people who can read music don't
need recordings. In fact, Beethoven, deaf in his later years was
probably less handicapped than Haendel, who became blind.
Now, Enough with the foolish questions!

Valfer

wrote:

> is too much availability bad for art? are today's artists drowned and
> flooded by too much and therefore unable to concentrate on the inner
> voice?


In other words, is art bad for art?


--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will
be, much less is.

- Charles Bernstein

wrote:

> is too much availability bad for art? are today's artists drowned and
> flooded by too much and therefore unable to concentrate on the inner
> voice?


In other words, is art bad for art?


--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will
be, much less is.

- Charles Bernstein

But to address one part of your question

Traveling orchestras and composers and conductors - Haydn's famous
tour of London, for example. Later, traveling orchestras and wind
bands. Sousa is most famous today for his marches; but in his day
he led a traveling band, as a business, and they played a lot of
transcriptions of orchestral works. He had a wind band, rather than
a symphony orchestra, because they played a lot of outdoor concerts
where the sound of more subtle instruments would get lost. Even as
late as the 1950s when I was in high school the band played a lot of
orchestral transcriptions rather than music written specifically for
bands, as is customary nowadays. That was about as close as most of
the townspeople ever got to hearing live performances of classical
music.

Pipe organ and even piano transcriptions of larger works were popular.
Today the organ is primarily a church instrument, with some installations
in concert halls. Most people know there were once organs of a different
kind used to accompany silent movies. But there were once also
organs intended to play concert music; some cities had municipal
organs and organists. And there were organs in schools. A lot of
the organ transcriptions were hack work, and the whole idea is fairly
disreputable today. But some of the transcriptions or "reductions"
were done by well-regarded musicians: e.g. Liszt. Then too, there
are frequent mentions of composers demonstrating their latest works
for their friends by playing excerpts on the piano.

I imagine traveling performers of classical music had more celebrity
in the past than they enjoy today. A musician could make a living by
traveling around the country performing in every town and village
along the railroad line.
--

jhhaynes at earthlink dot net

But to address one part of your question

Traveling orchestras and composers and conductors - Haydn's famous
tour of London, for example. Later, traveling orchestras and wind
bands. Sousa is most famous today for his marches; but in his day
he led a traveling band, as a business, and they played a lot of
transcriptions of orchestral works. He had a wind band, rather than
a symphony orchestra, because they played a lot of outdoor concerts
where the sound of more subtle instruments would get lost. Even as
late as the 1950s when I was in high school the band played a lot of
orchestral transcriptions rather than music written specifically for
bands, as is customary nowadays. That was about as close as most of
the townspeople ever got to hearing live performances of classical
music.

Pipe organ and even piano transcriptions of larger works were popular.
Today the organ is primarily a church instrument, with some installations
in concert halls. Most people know there were once organs of a different
kind used to accompany silent movies. But there were once also
organs intended to play concert music; some cities had municipal
organs and organists. And there were organs in schools. A lot of
the organ transcriptions were hack work, and the whole idea is fairly
disreputable today. But some of the transcriptions or "reductions"
were done by well-regarded musicians: e.g. Liszt. Then too, there
are frequent mentions of composers demonstrating their latest works
for their friends by playing excerpts on the piano.

I imagine traveling performers of classical music had more celebrity
in the past than they enjoy today. A musician could make a living by
traveling around the country performing in every town and village
along the railroad line.
--

jhhaynes at earthlink dot net

Jim Haynes wrote:

> But to address one part of your question
>
> Traveling orchestras and composers and conductors - Haydn's famous
> tour of London, for example. Later, traveling orchestras and wind
> bands. Sousa is most famous today for his marches; but in his day
> he led a traveling band, as a business, and they played a lot of
> transcriptions of orchestral works. He had a wind band, rather than
> a symphony orchestra, because they played a lot of outdoor concerts
> where the sound of more subtle instruments would get lost.

But his band included harp, which seems like one of the more subtle
instruments to me.

> Even as
> late as the 1950s when I was in high school the band played a lot of
> orchestral transcriptions rather than music written specifically for
> bands, as is customary nowadays.

The transcriptions where still in school band libraries as late as the
1970s. Actually, that's a big part of why I decided back then that I
did not like bands - the bands I heard, and the one I played in for a
year, did almost no music originally written for band and many of the
transcriptions were terrible. I think the trend towards performing more
music written specifically for bands is a good thing, and some of it is
really amazing.

> That was about as close as most of
> the townspeople ever got to hearing live performances of classical
> music.
>

I don't understand this comment. If somebody transcribes a piece of
classical music for other instruments and performs it, does it not
remain classical music?

> Pipe organ and even piano transcriptions of larger works were popular.
> Today the organ is primarily a church instrument, with some installations
> in concert halls.

A lot of concerts take place in churches.

>
> I imagine traveling performers of classical music had more celebrity
> in the past than they enjoy today. A musician could make a living by
> traveling around the country performing in every town and village
> along the railroad line.

Probably true. I don't think any conductor today could be as much of a
star as Sousa was just by touring.


--
Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
To all musicians, appear and inspi
Translated Daughter, come down and startle
Composing mortals with immortal fire.

Jim Haynes wrote:

> But to address one part of your question
>
> Traveling orchestras and composers and conductors - Haydn's famous
> tour of London, for example. Later, traveling orchestras and wind
> bands. Sousa is most famous today for his marches; but in his day
> he led a traveling band, as a business, and they played a lot of
> transcriptions of orchestral works. He had a wind band, rather than
> a symphony orchestra, because they played a lot of outdoor concerts
> where the sound of more subtle instruments would get lost.

But his band included harp, which seems like one of the more subtle
instruments to me.

> Even as
> late as the 1950s when I was in high school the band played a lot of
> orchestral transcriptions rather than music written specifically for
> bands, as is customary nowadays.

The transcriptions where still in school band libraries as late as the
1970s. Actually, that's a big part of why I decided back then that I
did not like bands - the bands I heard, and the one I played in for a
year, did almost no music originally written for band and many of the
transcriptions were terrible. I think the trend towards performing more
music written specifically for bands is a good thing, and some of it is
really amazing.

> That was about as close as most of
> the townspeople ever got to hearing live performances of classical
> music.
>

I don't understand this comment. If somebody transcribes a piece of
classical music for other instruments and performs it, does it not
remain classical music?

> Pipe organ and even piano transcriptions of larger works were popular.
> Today the organ is primarily a church instrument, with some installations
> in concert halls.

A lot of concerts take place in churches.

>
> I imagine traveling performers of classical music had more celebrity
> in the past than they enjoy today. A musician could make a living by
> traveling around the country performing in every town and village
> along the railroad line.

Probably true. I don't think any conductor today could be as much of a
star as Sousa was just by touring.


--
Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
To all musicians, appear and inspi
Translated Daughter, come down and startle
Composing mortals with immortal fire.

yeah, but reading music isn't same as listening to its full impact.

we can read plays or screenplays but that's not the same as watching
theatre or a movie.

yeah, but reading music isn't same as listening to its full impact.

we can read plays or screenplays but that's not the same as watching
theatre or a movie.

Your comment places in question your knowledge of music.

Composers don't have a symphony orchestra available to play the music
as they work on it. It takes a lot of visualization and creativity.

It is the job of a conductor to look at an orchestral score and shape
the music in his mind. Only after having done this can he lead a
performance of any artistic worth.

One does not need be a conductor to read a piece of music and form a
mental image of how it should sound either from the page or from
playing it. Any capable musician can.

One does not read music in the same way one reads a play or movie
script. The elements involved are very different.

Valfer

Your comment places in question your knowledge of music.

Composers don't have a symphony orchestra available to play the music
as they work on it. It takes a lot of visualization and creativity.

It is the job of a conductor to look at an orchestral score and shape
the music in his mind. Only after having done this can he lead a
performance of any artistic worth.

One does not need be a conductor to read a piece of music and form a
mental image of how it should sound either from the page or from
playing it. Any capable musician can.

One does not read music in the same way one reads a play or movie
script. The elements involved are very different.

Valfer

wrote:
>
> yeah, but reading music isn't same as listening to its full impact.
>
> we can read plays or screenplays but that's not the same as watching
> theatre or a movie.

There's a lot more difference between a script and a performance than
between a score and a performance.
--
Peter T. Daniels

wrote:
>
> yeah, but reading music isn't same as listening to its full impact.
>
> we can read plays or screenplays but that's not the same as watching
> theatre or a movie.

There's a lot more difference between a script and a performance than
between a score and a performance.
--
Peter T. Daniels

Peter T. Daniels > wrote:

> wrote:
> >
> > yeah, but reading music isn't same as listening to its full impact.
> >
> > we can read plays or screenplays but that's not the same as watching
> > theatre or a movie.
>
> There's a lot more difference between a script and a performance than
> between a score and a performance.

It depends. There's less difference between the script and a performance
of Beckett or Pinter than there is between the score and a performance
of most HIP baroque music, or Renaissance instrumental music. C19 opera
is also prone to unexpected embellishment on the grounds of "tradition".
--
MJHaslam MA, ARCO, LGSM

Peter T. Daniels > wrote:

> wrote:
> >
> > yeah, but reading music isn't same as listening to its full impact.
> >
> > we can read plays or screenplays but that's not the same as watching
> > theatre or a movie.
>
> There's a lot more difference between a script and a performance than
> between a score and a performance.

It depends. There's less difference between the script and a performance
of Beckett or Pinter than there is between the score and a performance
of most HIP baroque music, or Renaissance instrumental music. C19 opera
is also prone to unexpected embellishment on the grounds of "tradition".
--
MJHaslam MA, ARCO, LGSM

"Valfer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Perhaps it may amaze you to learn that people who can read music don't
> need recordings. In fact, Beethoven, deaf in his later years was
> probably less handicapped than Haendel, who became blind.
> Now, Enough with the foolish questions!
>

Okay if I continue with the foolish answers?

"Valfer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Perhaps it may amaze you to learn that people who can read music don't
> need recordings. In fact, Beethoven, deaf in his later years was
> probably less handicapped than Haendel, who became blind.
> Now, Enough with the foolish questions!
>

Okay if I continue with the foolish answers?

okay, what if you're a music aficianado who can't read music back then?

okay, what if you're a music aficianado who can't read music back then?

> Perhaps it may amaze you to learn that people who can
> read music don't need recordings.

Posting from rec.food.cooking, it may amaze you that good
chefs can know the flavor of a food by reading the recipe.
Why was RFC included in the post.

Many folks visualize while reading novels, too. It can often
be much better than the movie.

Before written music came out, travelling trubadours were the
way music moved from place to place.

> Perhaps it may amaze you to learn that people who can
> read music don't need recordings.

Posting from rec.food.cooking, it may amaze you that good
chefs can know the flavor of a food by reading the recipe.
Why was RFC included in the post.

Many folks visualize while reading novels, too. It can often
be much better than the movie.

Before written music came out, travelling trubadours were the
way music moved from place to place.

But I believe Handel recovered, didn't he, from what would have had to be
extraordinarily painful eye surgery, no? Back certainly ended his days
blinded, but not, I thought, Handel.

"Valfer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Perhaps it may amaze you to learn that people who can read music don't
> need recordings. In fact, Beethoven, deaf in his later years was
> probably less handicapped than Haendel, who became blind.
> Now, Enough with the foolish questions!
>
> Valfer
>

But I believe Handel recovered, didn't he, from what would have had to be
extraordinarily painful eye surgery, no? Back certainly ended his days
blinded, but not, I thought, Handel.

"Valfer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Perhaps it may amaze you to learn that people who can read music don't
> need recordings. In fact, Beethoven, deaf in his later years was
> probably less handicapped than Haendel, who became blind.
> Now, Enough with the foolish questions!
>
> Valfer
>

wrote in news:1103315544.378807.235310
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> yeah, but reading music isn't same as listening to its full impact.
>
> we can read plays or screenplays but that's not the same as watching
> theatre or a movie.
>

Reading a screenplay or a book is sometimes better than a movie. Why?
Because the pictures are better.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

wrote in news:1103315544.378807.235310
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> yeah, but reading music isn't same as listening to its full impact.
>
> we can read plays or screenplays but that's not the same as watching
> theatre or a movie.
>

Reading a screenplay or a book is sometimes better than a movie. Why?
Because the pictures are better.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

LJO wrote:

> "Valfer" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Perhaps it may amaze you to learn that people who can read music don't
>>need recordings. In fact, Beethoven, deaf in his later years was
>>probably less handicapped than Haendel, who became blind.
>>Now, Enough with the foolish questions!
>>
>
>
> Okay if I continue with the foolish answers?
>
>

being a fool has never stopped you before. we've come to expect it.

In article >,
Nightingale > wrote:
>
>Jim Haynes wrote:
>
>The transcriptions where still in school band libraries as late as the
>1970s. Actually, that's a big part of why I decided back then that I
>did not like bands - the bands I heard, and the one I played in for a
>year, did almost no music originally written for band and many of the
>transcriptions were terrible. I think the trend towards performing more
>music written specifically for bands is a good thing, and some of it is
>really amazing.

I agree that many of the transcriptions are lousy - but in my case they
were at least an introduction to the classical music they represented,
and motivated me to buy recordings of the real thing.

I have mixed feelings about music written for bands. There was some stuff
back in the '50s that I really liked; and of course some first-rate
composers have sometimes written for wind band. But a lot of the recent
band compositions that I have heard just don't appeal to me - I suppose
they are technically good, and maybe they are appreciated by others,
but they just aren't the kind of stuff that I would care to hear a
second time.
>
>> That was about as close as most of
>> the townspeople ever got to hearing live performances of classical
>> music.
>>
>
>I don't understand this comment. If somebody transcribes a piece of
>classical music for other instruments and performs it, does it not
>remain classical music?

Yeah, but not as the composer intended it to be heard.

--

jhhaynes at earthlink dot net

In article >,
Nightingale > wrote:
>
>Jim Haynes wrote:
>
>The transcriptions where still in school band libraries as late as the
>1970s. Actually, that's a big part of why I decided back then that I
>did not like bands - the bands I heard, and the one I played in for a
>year, did almost no music originally written for band and many of the
>transcriptions were terrible. I think the trend towards performing more
>music written specifically for bands is a good thing, and some of it is
>really amazing.

I agree that many of the transcriptions are lousy - but in my case they
were at least an introduction to the classical music they represented,
and motivated me to buy recordings of the real thing.

I have mixed feelings about music written for bands. There was some stuff
back in the '50s that I really liked; and of course some first-rate
composers have sometimes written for wind band. But a lot of the recent
band compositions that I have heard just don't appeal to me - I suppose
they are technically good, and maybe they are appreciated by others,
but they just aren't the kind of stuff that I would care to hear a
second time.
>
>> That was about as close as most of
>> the townspeople ever got to hearing live performances of classical
>> music.
>>
>
>I don't understand this comment. If somebody transcribes a piece of
>classical music for other instruments and performs it, does it not
>remain classical music?

Yeah, but not as the composer intended it to be heard.

--

jhhaynes at earthlink dot net

Jim Haynes wrote:
>>The transcriptions where still in school band libraries as late as the
>>1970s. Actually, that's a big part of why I decided back then that I
>>did not like bands - the bands I heard, and the one I played in for a
>>year, did almost no music originally written for band and many of the
>>transcriptions were terrible. I think the trend towards performing more
>>music written specifically for bands is a good thing, and some of it is
>>really amazing.
>
>
> I agree that many of the transcriptions are lousy - but in my case they
> were at least an introduction to the classical music they represented,
> and motivated me to buy recordings of the real thing.

My first experience playing in a group was as part of the school
orchestra in grade 9, and I had heard a lot of the music in its original
form, both on records and at concerts. Hearing badly done
transcriptions was a horrible introduction to bands, and enough to put
me off until about a year ago when I went to hear a group at my school
(which would not have happened if I had not been too ill to sing
evensong that night) and really liked several of the pieces on the
program. The two highlights were a well done transcription of "Fall
Fair" (there are a few that don't stink) and "Esprit de Corps" by Jager.

>
> I have mixed feelings about music written for bands. There was some stuff
> back in the '50s that I really liked; and of course some first-rate
> composers have sometimes written for wind band. But a lot of the recent
> band compositions that I have heard just don't appeal to me - I suppose
> they are technically good, and maybe they are appreciated by others,
> but they just aren't the kind of stuff that I would care to hear a
> second time.

It's mostly the more recent music that I like best. What are some of
the pieces & composers that you like?

>>I don't understand this comment. If somebody transcribes a piece of
>>classical music for other instruments and performs it, does it not
>>remain classical music?
>
>
> Yeah, but not as the composer intended it to be heard.
>

Sometimes transcription were actually done by the composer.

I wonder if we even really know how the composer intended things to be
heard. Even with music that is not a transcription, it will be a
different because instruments have changed over the years.


--
Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
To all musicians, appear and inspi
Translated Daughter, come down and startle
Composing mortals with immortal fire.

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> wrote:
>
>>yeah, but reading music isn't same as listening to its full impact.
>>
>>we can read plays or screenplays but that's not the same as watching
>>theatre or a movie.
>
>
> There's a lot more difference between a script and a performance than
> between a score and a performance.

That's true, but the analogy is nevertheless a valid one.

--
Nicolai Zwar
http://www.nicolaizwar.com
"Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants,
cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (Yahweh, apparently throwing one
of his tantrums.)

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> wrote:
>
>>yeah, but reading music isn't same as listening to its full impact.
>>
>>we can read plays or screenplays but that's not the same as watching
>>theatre or a movie.
>
>
> There's a lot more difference between a script and a performance than
> between a score and a performance.

That's true, but the analogy is nevertheless a valid one.

--
Nicolai Zwar
http://www.nicolaizwar.com
"Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants,
cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (Yahweh, apparently throwing one
of his tantrums.)

It's a perfectly legitimate qustion, Valfer. The world before radio and
recording was a very different sound environment. ANd you're right that
deafness didn't even slow Beethoven down as a composer, though it did
halt his career as a virtuoso pianist and a conductor, whereas Handel
gave up composing when he went blind, but he could still be tempted to
tickle the ivories.

But Beethoven's very individuality as a composer was surely enhanced
because he could no longer hear anyone else's music. He didn't seem to
notice what Schubert and Rossini and Weber were up to. His last string
quarters were too strange for popular opinion to handle for 100 years.
Verdi remained free of Wagner's influence because he only once heard a
Wagner opera (Lohengrin), though he studied the scores with interest,
he thought them far too long and Germanic. (Both Verdi and Wagner were
influenced by Meyerbeer -- but only because they both went to Paris.)
Local schools remained very isolated. It was a perfectly natural
ambition to want to hear all of Beethoven's symponies in one's lifetime
-- they weren't often given outside the largest cities. Two-hand piano
arrangements of all music were common, and everyone in the middle and
upper classes studied at leat one instrument. The progress of a musical
trend was comparatively slow -- it took much longer to get used to the
sound of something if you couldn't hear ti five times a day, but only
once in a blue moon, and you never knew (except from the many excellent
journals) what was going on 100 miles away.

Hans Lick

In article >,
Nightingale > wrote:
>But his band included harp, which seems like one of the more subtle
>instruments to me.

Well I'm only trying to play back from memory what I read about Sousa
a while back. That he could have used a regular orchestra, but found
that a wind band worked better in the venues where he had to play.
Never having attended one of his concerts, I don't know if the harp
was audible. Often I see a wind band with a single bass fiddle in
it; and I don't know that I have ever heard the sound of the bass fiddle
or would realize the difference if it were not there.
--

jhhaynes at earthlink dot net

In article >,
Nightingale > wrote:
>But his band included harp, which seems like one of the more subtle
>instruments to me.

Well I'm only trying to play back from memory what I read about Sousa
a while back. That he could have used a regular orchestra, but found
that a wind band worked better in the venues where he had to play.
Never having attended one of his concerts, I don't know if the harp
was audible. Often I see a wind band with a single bass fiddle in
it; and I don't know that I have ever heard the sound of the bass fiddle
or would realize the difference if it were not there.
--

jhhaynes at earthlink dot net

Jim Haynes wrote:

> In article >,
> Nightingale > wrote:
>
>>But his band included harp, which seems like one of the more subtle
>>instruments to me.
>
>
> Well I'm only trying to play back from memory what I read about Sousa
> a while back. That he could have used a regular orchestra, but found
> that a wind band worked better in the venues where he had to play.

I haven't read that - do you remember the source. I do know that Sousa
was involved with military bands from an early age, and that bands have
always been popular in the US - much more than here. Most towns had a
band, and some civic bands have been in existence since the 1820s or 1830s.

> Never having attended one of his concerts, I don't know if the harp
> was audible. Often I see a wind band with a single bass fiddle in
> it; and I don't know that I have ever heard the sound of the bass fiddle
> or would realize the difference if it were not there.

I think you would notice if the bass was missing.


--
Io la Musica son, ch'ai dolci accenti
So far tranquillo ogni turbato core,
Et or di nobil ira et or d'amore
Poss'infiammar le più gelate menti.