joshuacharlesmorris

When the harp is playing B#, because the harp needs to have the pedals in a particular setup, while the rest of the orchestra is playing C-natural as part of a C major chord: Is it preferable for the conductors score to

A) reflect exactly what the harp is doing and show B#

OR

B) show the conductor the function of the part and re-notate as C-natural

I've seen scores from the likes of Berlioz/Stravinsky/Mahler that take alternating views here. Is there a standard practice?

Many of the regulars here chide those who would call Debussy or Ravel impressionists: To give a broad definition: In visual arts impressionism is the representation of the "idea" of an object rather than the object itself.

But all music is already abstract by its nature, and at most already gives a representation of an object rather than the object itself. Is there any room for compatibility, or meaningful application of the term to music? if so where and how?

Slate recently had an article about the impact of copyright stifling the publication of books not in the public domain:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/03/30/inf...

Is US copyright protection of 70 years after the death of the author too long? too short? just right? and what justifies any particular length of time?

Also to what degree, if any, do you think copyright duration plays into the relative obscurity of modern classical music?

Thinking about getting a smart car. I used to haul my fiddle around in a geo metro with the front passenger seat out. The smart car is a little bit smaller but on paper the the dimensions are just barely big enough. Was wondering if anyone has tried putting a bass into a smart car.

Debussy rejected the notion that he was an impressionist. Ferneyhough rejects the idea that he is part of the new complexity. Antheil spent much of his life trying to get away from the futurist shadow that his Ballet Mechanique cast over him. There are numerous other examples of composers and other artists rejecting the labels given to them by critics and historians.

So how do we know when to trust the critic, historian or composer, and when is a composer simply wrong about themselves?

We get the occasional question here bemoaning the lack of modern day Mozarts or Bachs, people who say classical music is dead. Throughout the history of music what are some notable examples of critics, composers, conductors performers, etc making the same critique of the music of their day or the future of music?

One of the earliest I'm aware of (from around 1585) is a dialogue between the composer Zoilo and Pope Gregory XII who laments that modern music is so uncouth as to not be beautiful:

“Music for the celebration of the divine praises and offices in plainsong since the publication of Breviary by the Council of Trent have been filled to overflowing with barbarisms, obscurities, contrarieties, and superfluities as a result of the clumsiness or negligence or even wickedness of the composers, scribes, and printers”

In the theater there is a more less universal understanding that a play can and should be done different ways each time it is performed. The same Shakespeare play can be set in Caesar's Rome, 16th century England, or modern day Iraq or anywhere in between.

Here's Trevor Nunn and Patrick Stewart discussing this idea, the key point comes at 5:37

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hulHTH-3bc&feature...

(let's face it; the differences between Alexander Korsantia and Emanuel Ax performing Brahms amount to slight variations in tempo and articulation.)

Do you think an analogous reading of classical music is appropriate? and why do you think the analogous idea that classical music can or should be played different ways for different times is often shirked by classical musicians?

We've had a few questions recently about whether certain composers and pieces belong to certain periods.

I'm not interested in why Beethoven belongs in one place or another. If you scour the internet you can find numerous sources that make contradicting claims, the general consensus among most academics and music historians is more nuanced and usually places him at the end of Classicism.

Anyone can go to a music library and confirm this, that's not what this question is about, but instead why is it important to categorize him, or a particular piece, as one or the other.

How does calling Beethoven a Classical composer (or Romantic composer) change our understanding of his music and his place in history?

With sites like IMSLP that offer free and easy access to public domain (and unfortunately sometimes also copyrighted material) how, if at all, will the music publishers be forced to change?

I was in a discussion with a music theorist who thought composition was inverse theory, and theory was inverted composition (i.e. a composer could go backwards from a theoretical analysis to generate a piece, in the same way a theorist can take a piece and make an analysis). I had strong opposition to the notion, though had difficulty in specifically articulating why. Is that position tenable, and why do you think so?

Sometimes I hear people say that they "don't get" modern (or contemporary) classical music. I've always been confounded by this response:

What specifically don't people get, and why don't they get it?

(also what the heck does it mean to "get" a piece of music?)

Here are two examples of pieces in which I've heard the "I don't get it" response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMB9239-fmo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usnIaA1Sn9Y

We've recently had a flurry of questions about Glenn Gould's unusual tempos which reignited some questions:

How much discretion should a performer have when making interpretive decisions?

How idiosyncratic can or should a performer be? Or should we take John Cage's advise: personality is a flimsy thing on which to build an art?

I recently found the Verdi String Quartet and was pleasantly surprised by the piece, especially since I rarely think of Verdi outside of opera. What other gems do you know of by composers working in a medium other than that which we typically think of them?

Does one era beget the next as an inevitable progression into newer, better and more sophisticated music (i.e. did the Classical era have to follow the Baroque or could history have worked itself out differently)? If so why? If not how might we alternatively think about the development of music throughout history?

If so how might it the play be similar or varied from the way hearing people play?

Another question re-sparked my interest in this most inane of music theory questions.

If you thought of the cadential 6/4 chord as I or V would you actually play it differently? do you think you could hear the difference in how a performer was thinking about the chord? Or how the composer intended for it to be interpreted? How would you know?

I was recently cleaning and chanced on a cockroach and sprayed it with windex.

I was surprised to find that the roach fell to the ground and died in less than a minute.

Windex is mostly water, ammonia, isopropyl alcohol, and tiny quantities of a few other chemicals.

But what reaction is there with a roach. (in this case an American Cockroach in case it makes a difference) And might there be a more effective proportion of these chemicals than found in windex.

Please respond with chemical equations or explanations of cockroach anatomy. (I know there's lots on the web about these things, but very little is of the technical nature I curious about)

In the wake of the announcement of the creation of a synthetic cell I've seen several news stories that take the angle that "we shouldn't play god."

Why shouldn't we play god?

(aside from the fact that the god of the bible commits murder and genocide capriciously and over petty grievances)

I've heard several people try to make a connection between the two genres, but whenever I ask for any specific relationships between them I've never been able to get a coherent answer (in part because most of these people have a minimal knowledge of classical music). Where did this get started and why do some metal aficionados believe this?

If you think there is relationship please explain with specific details what it is.

I've seen a number of pianists some amateur, some professional, and even some teachers at distinguished conservatories use "vibrato" on the piano by trying to wiggle the keys like a violinist would do vibrato. If you know how a piano works you know that this "vibrato" has no effect on the sound of the piano. How did this get started, and why does a technique that has no effect persist?