Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all Show Posts made by this member. Note that you can only see Show Posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DocPMK

1
General Discussion / Problem under Windows Vista
I get an error in the viewer if I try to adjust the volume or transfer to NWC2 running under Windows Vista on a HPG60 laptop. Does any know anything about this problem or know of a fix? I also get a similar problem in NWC2 itself, although I can adjust volume from the system tray or the control panel without any problem! Thanks for any help!

DocPMK
2
General Discussion / Re: Various suggestions
Quote from: David Palmquist –

Since you're into choral music, I posted images of all the pages of my great-great grandfather's tune book, dated 1843, on flickr.com.  You're welcome to go there and print out any pages that interest you.  They're not in order, but I've tried to include the page numbers in the file names.

Thanks! That's interesting, I'll take a look at it.

My only message is that one needs to be kind to your performers, know their limitations. And even trained singers are fallible. I just think that as far as NWC there needs to be sufficient "bells and whistles" to do the job without making the program too costly and that the need for "work arounds" should be minimized to the extent possible to reduce frustration. And as far as the specific issue of enharmonic spellings, you cannot just change something in someone else's work or you risk even greater confusion from the performers, but you need to be able to find other ways to minimize confusion. As I said, even I initially missed what was going on in the Gounod and the editor could have been more helpful.
3
General Discussion / Re: Various suggestions
I agree with most of David Palmquist's comments. My point was not necessarily about capabilities as what one does in practice. I can do all kinds of analysis of a piece of music, but most of the time that is relevant. Determining pitch -- even for the best singers in sight-reading a new piece or in concert singing something that is well-rehearsed is a matter of a subconscious sense, listening, but not really a matter of analyzing. A lot of times that kind of analysis does no good for the singer because a lot of choral singing is antiphonal so you are reading horizontally. The only time you are looking at other parts is when you need to "hear" your next pitch after several measures of rest from some other part or the accompaniment. If you are learning music theory, it's a good exercise, but a performer does things not as a calculation, but from subconscious memory without thinking -- just like an athlete. Tiger Woods does not analyze every stroke, but he might if he was doing something consistently wrong or he wanted to do something special. The same is true of the vocal performer -- or even an instrumentalist -- a good musician does not do an in depth analysis -- except for maybe the director -- on every piece, but every once in a while, there might be a strange dissonance, or something else unusual or a particular difficulty in finding the pitch, etc. In the Gounod that I mentioned, the problem I was talking about was not a matter of anything that was theoretical wrong or difficult, but a matter of editing -- a matter of the way it was presented to the performer. The same rhythmic figure occurs several times in the passage I am talking about. In the subsequent instances, the bass part does indeed move down by a half-step. Only the first instance, is there a G-flat tied to an F-sharp. That instance is also at the bottom of the page and at the beginning of the last staff on the page. All of those facts make it confusing to even someone like me who is a soloist and who sight reads very, very well. And if it was confusing to me, it most certainly was confusing to less well-trained singers. That's why I think the editor could have been more helpful. Anyway, I only intended that as an example of a tie between different enharmonic spellings of the same note. That does occur.

As far as church choirs, I think nearly fifty years of experience is sufficient: They come in all kinds of abilities. I have sung in groups that had a very level of knowledge and ability. But most of the time the sanctuary choir, unless you want to hire pros, is made up of a handful of people with real ability and the rest do not read music that well and are followers -- good followers, and often very dedicated -- but they are not capable of any kind of theoretical analysis. If you talked about tonic and dominant and the like, you would get a puzzled look. They look at a key signature and all they know is how many sharps or flats there are. Most of the time you are lucky if you have any real tenors, most of the tenor section is made up of mostly baritones who can get up high enough to sing an average tenor part. I have more than enough range to sing both tenor and bass, but I can't do both at the same time. And singing on the edges of one's range is hard on the voice. So I only occasionally help the "tenor" section. Most church choir directors are also aware of all this so they take such facts and limitations into account when they pick pieces for the choir.
4
General Discussion / Re: Various suggestions
I meant to add that I was not against having the ability to properly tie enharmonic spellings. Read my previous posts. All I said was that the particular case was confusing, even to someone who is well-trained. Despite that, it would be wrong to simply change something simply because it is confusing. It is part of the key structure of the piece. A better suggestion for clearing up the confusion would have been to flag the instance in some way and provide a footnote to the effect that the G-flat and the F-sharp were the same (the problem was that the flat for the G was in the key signature and the sharp on the F was an accidental). I have seen such footnotes. It was not done in this case, but would have been helpful. However, it would be wrong to simply change the notes as written for several reasons -- it can only create more confusion for those who are looking at the original score as well, and it is also theoretically wrong because of the modulation that is going on. As I said, it would be nice to have more "bells and whistles" in NWC, not fewer because there is some sort of "work around."
5
General Discussion / Re: Various suggestions
Quote from: Peter Edwards –
...
I'd dispute that. I accept that some people cannot actually make any sense (musically) of a score but the majority of singers do understand the number of steps between two notes and fit those to the current key. But if the key changes then that approach doesn't help, and you have to work out what the next note is in some other way.

Whatever your preference (tonic solfa soh/doh; harmony analysis V/I; interval analysis perfect 4th) you have to calculate what is happening, and G# to C# is much easier to see than Ab to C#. ...

This is simply a wrong assumption. Many people who sing in church choirs have little training. They know no more than that their part goes up or down. I have sung in such choirs since I was a little boy (I am now 55 and have been singing church for nearly fifty years). It can be frustrating for a trained singer, because learning notes is like pulling teeth. ... I try to patient and understanding, but I know people who aren't, and it creates friction and I have seen some very bad "scenes" as a result.

Nor do even well trained singers engage in the kind of technical analysis you suggest. There is not enough time. The director does make such an analysis when necessary to help him understand the piece in order to direct it properly. The performer does not. I am a performer who is capable of making the analysis -- it just is not done, generally! When I make such an analysis, it is because there is a dissonance or other difficulty in the piece, where it helps me understand my part and when it is difficult to "hear" my note from whatever else may be going on. Many other members of the choir simply have to tune to those of us with the best pitch sense. And it is exactly that a sense -- an unconscious knowing, not a technical analysis.

What you suggest would be like Tiger Woods technically analyzing his stroke on every shot or a Michael Jordan thinking about every move. It does not happen.
6
General Discussion / Re: Various suggestions
Two points:

1) I was pointing out the Gounod Sanctus as an example of what has been done. That does not imply that it should be done that way. It would be better to write in such a way as to not be confusing. My church choir which recently did that piece as an anthem (Easter Sunday) has a very wide range of abilities. Very few of us have the ability to read music well enough to examine intervals, understand chord structure, or understand the key signature in more than a rudimentary fashion. I am one of the exceptions, although I have no formal training in music theory, I am also one of the soloists (bass-baritone) and sometimes I am not even available for rehearsals, but I can read well enough that most of the pieces we do I can show up on the day of performance and do far better than most of those who have been to several rehearsals. However, even I found that particular part confusing! On the other hand, that was the way it was done by the publisher. So you can be stuck, in producing rehearsal parts or whatever. I use NWC for individual rehearsal of my part when necessary and for arranging solo pieces and for doing some of my own pieces for the choir as a whole or for our organist, etc. However, when we first read the Sanctus, I did not have to time to look at my part with NWC. It took our Soprano soloist who is working on her doctorate in music to point it out. I guess we all make mistakes or get lazy sometimes. The publishers should not have done it that way, but they did!

2) With regard to singers, most of the time I do not pay that much attention to intervals, unless it there is no other way to figure out the pitch. I don't know of very many singers, even with solo quality voices and professional level abilities who would spend that kind of time. I can read that well, but I would not even bother. Most of the time I can get my pitch from either my previous note or another part, but I don't have to think about it or analyze. Most of the members of my choir would not even be capable of thinking that far. Even though I am capable of making that kind of analysis, I generally do not have to -- I simply instinctually, below the level of consciousness, know where my pitch is and how to get there without gliding to the note or any other mistake of that sort. And it is no different than any other instrument player who does not look at the keys on his piano, or where his or her fingers are on the fingerboard of his/her violin, etc. I am very, very good, so I do know what I am talking about and my only instrument is my voice. My hands do not work well enough to play the piano anymore because of arthritis.

The short and long of it is that composers/arrangers/publishers should try to make things with as little confusion as possible for the sake of the poor performer, but they often do not. And if you are simply using NWC to reproduce someone else's work you may not have a lot of choice or risk creating even more confusion. (Sorry this is so long). Anyway, I think it would be nice to have sufficient bells and whistles in NWC to make it possible to reproduce things as written when necessary, even though it might be wrong in theory, just because it can create more confusion to try to change things -- remember the enemy of good is perfect!
7
General Discussion / Re: Various suggestions
Tying between enharmonics is most certainly done. Take a look at Gounod's Sanctus in the bass part. On measure 62 there is a tie between G-flat and F-sharp (different enharmonic spellings of the same note). It is actually confusing because five measures later there is a slur between G and F-sharp that looks similar, but is clearly different. One has to look carefully to know that in the first instance the basses are singing the same note on the dotted-half and the dotted quarter-note -- and it is tied -- and in the second they drop a half-step from G to F-sharp!
8
General Discussion / Re: Help needed!
You call this “discussion” healthy? Who deemed it so? You? I cannot think of anything more unhealthful than when someone asks for help, instead of trying to provide that help or even at least showing compassion and understanding, you berate the person for his or her use of the English language. You have a lot to learn and a lot of work to do to get that log out of your own eye!

I am a lawyer who also has a medical degree and a Ph.D. in biomedical science. I graduated at or near the top of my class for all three of my professional/doctoral degrees (J.D., M.D., Ph.D.). Professionally my whole life is about helping others who are in need of help. People who need help often are somewhat inarticulate in requesting that help. It goes with the frustration and the lack of knowledge that leads to the need for help in the first place. It is not uncommon for there to be deterioration in language skills when making a request for help either — human beings are frail, with many foibles. I certainly hope that no one would respond to you in the same vein as you did to a request for help, but maybe if that did happen you would understand how hurtful it is to have someone berate you for the manner in which you ask for help! Learn some compassion and understanding.

Among my many experiences, skills, and talents is a very good grasp of language. I was unofficially the copy editor for the school newspaper during my senior year in college (there was no actual title to the position). I am a published author in the medical literature and have been a referee editor for a major publication in the medical field. In law school I was an associate editor for the law review and the winner of the Scribes award for the best student note (article). I was awarded honors for my performance in the advanced appellate advocacy writing course, and I am currently preparing manuscripts for publication on several important issues. I am also pretty good at German and am fairly proficient at reading French as well. I bow to no one on my abilities with language. Yet it would never occur to me to chastise someone’s grammar, spelling, etc. in asking for help in a setting such as this. I understood what was being asked for. So did several others who were able to make helpful suggestions.

Learning to read music is a complex task. Most people never progress beyond the rudiments. I have sung in plenty of ensembles where 99% of the people are still laboriously trying to figure out their own notes — long, long after I am trying to figure out how to make the piece music, to sing something more than just the notes. I can look at a score and read and understand it in its entirety at a glance. Few people ever reach that level. I doubt if there are many on this site who are at that kind of proficiency either. The original request for help was so knowledge of where to begin the process of learning how to read music. Some very good suggestions were made. Most school children learning to read music, learn some form of mnemonic for the lines of the treble clef (“Every good boy does fine” comes to mind). That is a good starting place. At the same time the suggestion for more information on the status line is excellent — I would find it useful to have info on key signature, time signature, staff, measure number, and what note on the staff on the status line. My word processor provides info as to page number, line and position, insert versus typeover mode, etc. This would be similar. That is again an excellent suggestion.

You have a lot to learn about dealing with other people. You are not good enough intellectually, and I suspect musically as well, and certainly not good enough in terms of compassion and understanding to start lecturing me or anyone else on this message board about language or about your criticism of perceived errors. As I said you need to work on getting that log out of your own eye rather than the speck you perceive in someone else’s eye.

Phil K.
9
General Discussion / Re: Help needed!
At the risk of violating scriptural admonitions against arguing with fools, I have five earned degrees — three at the doctoral level. I have been singing in church and performing musically in worship, on stage, and in other venues since I was a little boy. I am now fifty-five years old. I have wowed all kinds of audiences, I have caused whole sections of the choir to stop singing and listen in awe to the director’s chagrin. Musicianship is a whole lot more than mastering a few technical details of reading, writing, and performing music. I doubt that very many communicating in this space measure up in terms of education or musical ability. I use NWC for rehearsal purposes and to write/arrange solos and other music for church, since arthritis in my hands no longer allows me to play the piano. I mention all this, not to brag, but to point out that no one, including me, has arrived at the mountaintop yet. A whole lot more humility and charity, and a whole lot less criticism and pontificating is in order!

Phil K.