Subject: Re: Notation in EA - comments?
From: Will Rice (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Feb 01 1999 - 09:38:12 EST
I always create a score while composing, for three reasons: first, it enables me to get a bigger picture of the work as a whole, so that I don't get lost in the sea of details that EAM necessitates, and second, I can carry it around and work on it even when I'm not in the studio. It's more of a planning document than a score for other people. Finally, I also use it later for diffusion, too, and it might be useful to send with a work if another person is going to diffuse it.
>>> Steven Naylor <Steven.Naylor@dal.ca> 01/31 8:03 PM >>>
I'm working on an informal article that addresses (albeit superficially) a
couple of issues of EA/CM and notation, and would welcome any comments from
list members on this topic.
More specifically, I am curious to hear current opinions on the following:
1. For recorded works (with no live performance or composer-directed
active projection), what functions does a 'score' actually serve for
listener and composer?
2. 'Scores' may be created before- or after-the fact (or some
combination) for works that do not include live performances. This is
certainly related to how much the composer works through the materials as
opposed to working towards a solidly defined plan. What value judgements
are placed on the two approaches to both notating and composing?
3. Given that some EA composers work almost entirely in software
environments that generate copious amounts of visual material as the work
progresses, how valid would it be to consider this material an after-the
Thanks for any feedback on this..
PS Although I may write observations drawn from your replies, I will not
quote or attribute anyone's comments without seeking your specific
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:08:50 EDT