Hello Trevor,
I thank you for your contribution ; of course here we need a detailed
scientific study and we can't write a general, narrow-minded theory of
music history.
However, the american "chord-based thinking" you focus on could be an
excellent way to approach English/American music writing.
Here in France (I don't know where you come from), we often establish
a distinguo between Italian and German musical thinking from the 17th
century, as far as German and northern-european countries are well
known for being used to counterpoint, due (among others) to their
early religious vocal music (particularly Luther's chorals, as soon as
the Reformation begun, and so on).
Italian music (that is, catholic side of Europe, somehow including
France) tends to be more vertically-thinking (although many exceptions
can be found, for instance with Frescobaldi) ; they use continuo,
figured bass and so on, and it's obviously a very "chord based"
thinking.
You didn't mention the rhythmic question at all, and there would be
quite an interesting comparison too ; to my mind the "simplicity" of
vertical chord-based languages brings more efficient and
understandable rhythms, whereas counterpoint, by somehow breaking the
unity with more or less sophisticated superpositions, tends to make
music less "immediate" (i hope you're following me guys, since it is a
bit harsh for me to put that in english...). That is why, as far as
I'm concerned, I feel definitely closer of the so-called "Italian
way", and therefore I'm don't feel post-serialist or whatever...
As a pianist, I've practiced both jazz and continuo as well, and I've
always been struck by the similarities of those two thinkings. I don't
-and can't- agree with ridiculous far-fetched musicologists theories
like "Baroque is Jazz" or whatever ; I'm juste talking about technical
similarities implying what I would call a "movement-oriented" music,
in which "voices multiplicity" isn't the first preoccupation, and
"fake" counterpoint effects don't play any architectural role, but are
just meant to make movement, or dramatic progression, more efficient.
You could say that as well (in my humble opinion) about all "weaving"
musics, like the repetitive or minimalistic american school, or about
Stravinsky too (for some parts of it), for instance, or about Vivaldi
works... Those musics are not very "lilypond-convenient" ; but as I
said in my previous post, it gives another way of considering them.
Think different, so to say... :)
Thank you. (and so long for the main topic, I'm afraid....)
2006/10/29, Trevor Bača <address@hidden>:
Warning: off-topic :-)
I think that Valentin's comment here is particularly interesting:
> -You've got to think very _VERY_ horizontally, and not vertically like
> in Sibelius or Finale. This has been the major difficulty to me. But
> if you think about it, you'll realize that it helps you indeed by
> making you work on larger sequences instead of just "fill" your score
> bar after bar after bar.
Of course there's plenty of horizontal / stratified / contrapuntal
music written in the Anglo-American world, and there's also plenty of
veritcal / chord-based music written in continental Europe. However
(and I know I'm going to get blasted for this, which is OK), there
seems to me to be something of preference for chord-based thinking in
the US (and possibly the UK) and something of a similar preference for
layered thinking in Europe (at least when we're talking about people
study and teach composition in universities and conservatories).
Perhaps I'm wrong about this, or perhaps this is kinda the case and
might have something to do with the emphasis on chordal Roman-numeral
type analysis in conservatory education in the US (versus counterpoint
in Europe).
Anyway, it's fun to observe that Finale and Sibelius are American and
English inventions, respectively, and rather vertical-oriented,
whereas LilyPond is a much more international invention (and very
horizontal in orientation, as Valentin points out).
:-)
Trevor.