February 22, 2007 at 1:31 am #86351
As for other instruments, I am not familiar with violin harmonics but guitar harmonics are written where played, and next to piano music guitar music is probably the second most prolific written music in the Western world. If consistency in notation were ever to come about I would think it would model itself after what are currently the most prolific forms of written music.
Professionally, I’m a flutist.February 22, 2007 at 4:51 pm #86352diane-michaelsSpectator
The Brahms quote about Lohengrin reminds me of one by Mark Twain: “Wagner’s music is better than it sounds.”February 22, 2007 at 8:20 pm #86353
Carl, looking through my older music (eg Oberthur) I can see quite a few piecesFebruary 22, 2007 at 8:59 pm #86354
Then there’s another point…. I’m a bit of a perfect pitcher… personally I find for example Fsharp and Gflat not sounding the same.February 22, 2007 at 9:11 pm #86355
And even technically their frequencies are actually different…
Not if you are in equal temperament- it depends how you regulate and tune your harp.February 22, 2007 at 9:17 pm #86356
No… they don’t sound the same to me! I tune my harp perfect on flats…. I sharpen one note, and put it against the other coherent flat.. its not the same.February 22, 2007 at 9:46 pm #86357diane-michaelsSpectator
What a great point, Esmeralda!February 22, 2007 at 9:46 pm #86358
There is a difference between reality and theory and I am correcting your theory not your ears.February 22, 2007 at 10:57 pm #86359Saul Davis ZlatkovskiParticipant
Yes…BUT the strings are different sizes, and moreover, with or without discs touching the strings which changes the tone quality, and I was always taught that an e-sharp should be slightly sharper than an f-flat. An open string has a bigger, rounder tone than one in the natural position, and the sharp position has a very pinched quality, and the tension of the string is tightened considerably, so there is a very real difference between an f-flat and an e-sharp.
As for neatness, Salzedo was by nature very meticulous. For example, he could not abide having extra string length curled up along the top of the harp. Miss Lawrence would say, probably quoting him, ‘your harp needs a haircut.’ So for his notation to be meticulous is a natural extension of that trait. Unfortunately, it didn’t extend so far as to his study of baroque music ornamentation in his early days, though he did work on it later on. I think his peers were just messy about everything, when to pedal, how your harp looks, inconsistent. But aren’t the French supposed to be so very logical, conceptual and rational? Why only him? Who knows. What would have happened if he had not emigrated to the United States? Think about that, shall we?February 23, 2007 at 9:34 am #86360
Thanks Saul for giving the exact explanation of what I meant… Its the same thing like getting a violin and performing an E at forth position (on A string) or bowing it open… the sound is not the same… same goes to harp… ok.. ok.. I should have said resonance and colour.
If Salzedo didn’t come go to USA… well probably he would have ended up another Renie and all the other cuddled up in the Hasselmans School with no space for fresh air… We have to admit that Europe is still highly conservative, so any new ideas are considered trash… I myself have the image of trador of the harp, cause I’m out with some different music… And now let’s be honest… throughout the whole 20th century, the best composers and composition all came from the other side of the Atlantic.February 23, 2007 at 12:55 pm #86361jennifer-buehlerMember
An E-sharp should be be more than slightly sharper than F-flat as E-sharp is equivelant to F natural. 🙂February 23, 2007 at 6:43 pm #86362erin-woodParticipant
I am playing Tosca right now.February 23, 2007 at 7:18 pm #86363
When a man loves a woman… hehe.. no nothing to do.. that’s my Mp3 playing some background music.
We never said that Renie was not a great harpist… no doubt on that… but since it was me started the Renie/Salzedo argument…. A harpist, and a composer, are two different things, even if we’re discussing the same person…. If salzedo instructed Dilling to study with Renie, and also as the statment reflects he was doing this on a harptuition argument… no doubt Renie was great at that… the original argument started off by saul from where this drifted was the different composition manners.February 23, 2007 at 7:37 pm #86364carl-swansonParticipant
Esmeralda- Just a little clarification on your post. In the period between let’s say 1890 and 1920 in Paris, there was a HUGE split among French composers as to which direction French music should go. The academic composers, led by Faure, but also including Theodor Dubois, Gabriel Pierne, etc. felt that French composition should continue out of the old traditions. The Impressionists, led by Debussy, and including Ravel, Andre Caplet, Deodat de Severac, and of course Tournier, took a radically different approach. The two groups really didn’t mix at all and had little or no respect for each other. Renie, as well as Hasselmans, sided with the academics. Those opposing them called themselves ‘Debussyists.’ Pierre Jamet, at the tail end of his life, said to me, “Moi, j’etais Debussyist!” Many of the fine harpists produced by Hasselmans had enormous respect for the man and what he taught them technically, but they HATED the music he taught. Pierre Jamet was a huge proponent of contemporary music, as was Micheline Kahn. Salzedo shared the same attitudes as these other harpists, but because he had impressive compositional talents, also went off in a radically different direction. I think that Salzedo, being Salzedo, did not want to follow either of the two trends of his day(the academics or the Debussyists) and so created his own style.February 23, 2007 at 8:07 pm #86365
Carl… I fully agree… I just didn’t go into such historical detail (don’t worry.. done a whole thesis titled French music, its development, influences and relationship to Mediterranean Music ; )
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.