[HANASHIR:1575] Re: Notation methods for Not By Might -Reply

[Michelle Katz <MICHKATZ...>]

Regarding Judy's comment about headers:
I don't know if this is what she's referring to, but I know that I've been
having a hard time following threads lately since many folks are only
leaving the digest topic # which mean absolutely nothing to me.  It would
helpful if folks would leave the digest header but also add something that
relates to the topic so we can all tell what topic the message is about.

>>> Judy Git <hillel (at) prodigy(dot)net> 10/25/98 06:14pm >>>
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
>