[HANASHIR:1562] Re: Notation methods for Not By Might

[Judy Git <hillel...>]

Just a trivial little notation, since you're using "Not By Might" as an 
example.  If I
had to tell someone what the rhythme was, IF that person ever heard the music 
from
"West Side Story,"  it would be easy.  Debbie doesn this herself from time to 
time.
"I want to be in America."  :o)

Also - what's with all the headers on these emails all of a sudden??

Judy

Michelle Katz wrote:

> Not By Might is a very good song to illustrate the inherent limitations in
> either of these systems, and also the value of learning some things by ear
> vs. by notation.  This is one of those songs that I never could have
> learned without listening to it because of the rhythm (and a wonderful
> rhythm it is!)
>
> Still, if I had to pick one of the two methods below, I would have to opt for
> Judith's, which clearly indicates the dotted quarter notes.  In fact, I am not
> sure Kent has notated the song correctly in his own method.  Shouldn't it
> be
>
> G(3)  F(3)  E(2)     D(3)  E(3)    D(2)   |
>
> No(3)-ot(3) by(2)   Mi(3)-ight(3) and(2)  |
>
> C(2)  E(1)  D(3)  A(2)    B(1)  D(1)  R(3)  C(1)   C(2)  |
>
> No(2)-o(1)-ot(3)  by(2)  pow(1)-er(1) R(3)  but(1) by(2)  |
>
> etc.
>
> Basically, by Judith's method, one can simply look at the sheet music and
> then mark the 1/2/4/8 as if one were actually writing out the notes.
>
> I guess this all proves that there is still no substitution for getting the 
> actual
> music, both written and recorded!
>
> Shabbat Shalom, everyone.
>
> >>> "Bailey, Kent R., Ph.D."  Kent Bailey <baileyk (at) mayo(dot)edu> 10/23/98
> 03:37pm >>>
>
> At the risk of self-promotion, try to do Debbie Friedman's "Not by Might"
> with "1/2/4/8/9" notation versus parenthesized counts (or at least counts
> over the notes)
>
> parenthesized counts:
>
> G(3)  F(2)  E(3)     D(3)  E(2)    D(3)   |
>
> No(3)-ot(2) by(3)   Mi(3)-ight(2) and(3)  |
>
> C(2)  E(2)  D(1)  A(2)    B(2)   D(2)  R(2)  C(1)   C(2)  |
>
> No(2)-o(2)-ot(1)  by(2))  pow(2) er(2) R(2)  but(1) by(2)  |
>
> G(3)   A(2)    F(1)   G(2)    R(2)    R(2)    D(2)      |
>
> Spi(3)-rit(2)  a(1)- lone(2)  clap(2) clap(2)  shall(2)  |
>
> D(2)    D(2)   E(1)     F#(2)    G(1)  |  (G)(8)     |  (G)(8)
>
> We(2)   all2)  live(1)  in(2)   pe(1)- |  (eace)(8)  |  (eace) (8)  ...
>
> I almost wonder if it is even necessary to have measure marks?
> Now, try it with 1/2/4/8/9 notation
>
> 4.  4 (or 8-8?)   4.    4.   4     4.  |
> G   F             E  |  D    E     D   |
> No- ot            by | mi-  ight  and  |
>
> I'm afraid this loses something in the translation from beautiful contrasting
> notes on a page to numbers that look like Morse code.
>
> Here's the vertical system with counts rather than 1/2/4/8/9  time codes
>
> 3   2   3      3    2     3
> G   F   E   |  D    E     D    |
> No- ot  by  |  Mi-  ight  and  |
>
> 2   2   1   2   1       1   2   2   1    2
> C   E   D   A   B    | (B)  D   R   G-   G-  |
> No- o-  ot  by  pow- | ow- er  (R)  but  by  |
>
> (You didn't mention, but would "-" be the way to represent an octave
>  lower than the original G?)
>
> I'll gladly drop the parentheses if we can substitute counts for 1/2/4/8/9
> Not sure still how to handle measures and notes carried over measures.
> Dispense with measures?  In really syncopated music, maybe measures
> are more
> trouble than they're worth?
>
> Excitedly,
>
> Kent
>
> Rochester, MN
> baileyk (at) mayo(dot)edu
>