ds as Sol in the bass and Do-Ti-La-Ti in the upper voice...and then the 'chord' resolves to tonic. Here's a youtube recording of the piece so you can listen for what I'm talking about if I am not being descriptive enough: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdWkMq4xvtU. It seems this turn is used very frequently in major cadences, particularly in picardy thirds. What I am curious about is whether this Do-Ti-La-Ti ornament has a specific name or not. And then, to a FAR lesser extent, anyone have any hypotheses on why Lasso used this turn so much in this piece? I thought maybe (just maybe) he was making cliches commenting on their over use? Idk haha, what I'm really interested in is if there is a name for this melodic movement, but by all means speculate away! Thanks very much!
y, thanks so much for the hospitality and the warm welcome. It was a pleasure meeting you, the wife, the pup & the cat. As soon as I get done with these few projects I have going - I'll pick a key and get in on the action! Looking forward to hanging out again. Next time - we'll lasso Ed into it too! Take it easy,
on-based composers, because its staff view allows you to 'lasso' any number of notes in any number of measures, so you can quickly copy/paste etc. And you can scroll infinitely horizontally, and have up to 20 or so instruments in the view. It is meant as a way to work, not as actual notation, so don't expect that. Most people would use it after already doing the piece in their notation software, in order to render a decent mockup. I do most things backwards, so I create and work up the piece in Cakewalk, then export it to Notion to make a score. …
“Reply by Fredrick zinos 22 hours ago: Ondib, Please look at my home page on this Forum for data on De Lasso.”
Thank you Fredrick. I will. I listened to some music by Lasso on youtube, after reading that his name was 77th out of 500 listed composers. I was extremely impressed; he was magnificent, and he was completely unknown to me. It makes me wonder how many other people on this list of 500 have produced astounding works that I have never heard of; how many names of truly great composers are there, which I don’t know? It is both humbling and exciting. More sources of inspiration and delight! And to think: Lasso is only one of those names!
The piece I heard was this one: Orlando di Lasso - Tristis est anima mea http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9TYm4d5dNs
So, regarding the list, I share Michael Dernier’s pleasure at the placement of Debussy and Sibelius so high on the list; though I am not sure I am willing to argue about whether Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven should be ranked 1, 2 and 3, as they were; or slightly differently. I think people would see exactly why they are ranked that way, given the so-called 11 criteria.
Outlined here: http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/music/stats1.htm
I believe the criteria (assumed by the site host to be “objective”) are not what most people expect. I didn’t expect those to be the criteria. Fredrick zinos asked: “Raw score of what? Popularity?” I liked Greg Bus’ answer:
“I suspect this question could be answered by clicking the links Ondib provided and reading what's there. The author gives quite a detailed explanation on the data used. Heck, he even points out some of the flaws, who would've thought... Not saying whether this "study" is scientific enough or not, but well, even if it happened to fall into the category, exactly what would the label change? It is what it is.” I agree completely with you, Greg, and fully share your doubts about the scientific nature of the study, or at least with the result. I also concur with Mr. Kemp in his skepticism about “musicology,” and “academic” criteria for making such decisions. I feel fortunate that I have never been personally involved with, victimized by, or subject to the often unnecessary dogmatic strictures imposed upon people by our “musical academies.” Frankly, I don’t know what poses for contemporary musicology, since I operate totally independently of the “academic establishments,” such as they have been, and as they exist today. I generally share the skepticism about them. I do differentiate between talking about music on a “composer’s forum,” and “musicology,” whatever that may be.
I think Kristofer’s comments might have been apropos in certain circumstances:
“Reply by Kristofer P.D.Q. Emerig 19 hours ago: “Pachelbel's near the bottom? Wait, don't tell me, nestled between Henry VIII and Lady Gaga, no? Laughable.”
I believe I did tell you, so why ask me NOT to tell you. I said Pachelbel was “nestled” right next to: Martinu, Correlli, Ligeti, Scarlatti (Alessandro), Buxtehude, Meyerbeer, Busoni, Glinka, Orf, Stockhausen, Roderigo, Couperin, and Eliot Carter. That’s not bad company, I think. Lady Gaga is not on the list, and the only Henrys on the list were Henry Cowell and Henry Purcell. So Henry VIII did not make the top 500 either.
Kristofer added, “Obviously, the drafters of this farce have listened to far too many of those cheesy, generic, easy "classical" listening cassettes, the contents of the majority of which must necessarily contain both Pachelbel's singularly famous Canon, as well as Bach's ubiquitous Air, and undoubtedly the Moonlight, thrown in for good measure.”
I think Kristofer will be surprised when (and if) he actually consults the methodology, which is not difficult to understand, but which upsets expectations, since it has nothing to do with “opinion surveys” or with listening to cheesy cassettes. The “raw scores,” are (surprisingly) based on physical objective realities, and cultural facts, which can be measured. [People might suspect that I am trying to build up suspense, by not explaining or actually discussing the methodology here, but that is not the case. The list may be significant apart from its methodology, for reasons I will explain in a few sentences at the end of this post.]
Kristofer says, with total justification, ‘One has to wonder, with ample mistrust, at the metrics involved in these kitsch "rankings".’ Yes, the list should not be “trusted” at all, though not perhaps for the reasons given, since reasons mentioned thus far apply, if at all, indirectly to the eleven criteria. I don’t see how or why the rankings would be seen as “kitsch,” at least in the sense of referring to “unsubstantial or gaudy works or decoration.” After all, the top composers after Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are: Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Verdi (I might consider him a “bit Kitsch”), Handel, Haydn, etc – what I would call “great composers,” for the most part, whatever my personal preferences, with regard to style and content. (Is Tchaikovsky “kitsch?” I have thought so, at times. But I don’t think Schumann, Ravel, Debussy, Vivaldi, Berlioz and Hindemith are).
But the specific ranking is not nearly so interesting to me as something else. That something else has nothing to do with “musicology” (as a practiced academic field of study) or with “the academy” at all. I think the significance of the list is simply this: One can find on it names of composers that one does NOT know, and then do a search on youtube, and discover great music, perhaps TRULY GREAT music by composers one has never even heard of. Such music may INSPIRE ME, or give me ideas. That makes it worthwhile, to me. I began with example of Di Lasso, and I suspect there are many more. Rankings are a secondary matter. Exact precision in determining a ranking means very little to me: I won’t take seriously the idea that Franz Liszt is greater than Gustav Mahler, simply because the former ranks 12 and the latter ranks 19. Go down to 133 on the list and find the name of the composer “Arrigo Boito.” I don’t know who that is. I have never heard of him. Now that intrigues me. He may be TRULY GREAT. It would be a shame to neglect him entirely, if he is.…
way, because he can. It is a fully-fledged and fully-supported DAW which receives regular updates.
As for workflow, you can anything with it. I work in the staff and event views. I input notes either with a step-recorder, where you choose the note value, then use your keyboard to play the notes. you can later correct for things like volume and touch. Or, you can enter notes with your mouse, just like in notation software. Cakewalk's staff view is not notation per se; it is meant as a tool for composing. What I like about it is that it allows you to scroll infinitely in both dimensions, which means you can select any number of notes, even extending over many bars, and then apply changes to them, like velocity, length, transposition etc. Not all DAWS allow you to do this in staff view; Cubase for example makes you switch to another view to lasso notes beyond what you actually see on the screen. And some DAWS don't even have a staff view, forcing you to work in PRV (piano roll view; basically for those who don't read music).
So I would recommend Cakewalk. It's free, full-featured, and as good as any DAW on the market. You have nothing to lose. for someone who reads music and is used to working with notation, you can't go wrong. …
s a “raw score,” of 1.583, the highest, followed by Mozart with a raw score of 1.704 and Beethoven, with 3.186.
Toward the bottom of the one hundred greatest in this list are: Martinu, Correlli, Ligeti, Scarlatti (Alessandro), Buxtehude, Meyerbeer, Busoni, Glinka, Orf, Stockhausen, Roderigo, Couperin, Eliot Carter and –yes, PACHELBEL. (with raw scores ranging between 102.030 and 113.924)
Near the very bottom of the 500 greatests are composers like Eduard Tubin and William Alwyn (I like both of these) and quite a few I have never heard of. Their raw scores range between 389 and 402.
You can view the full list here:
The explanation of the “scores” is provided here:
and in more detail, here:
We are told,
“The information provided at this site was statistically arrived at; i.e., decisions as to which composers and which of their works should be included were based on objective criteria, not subjective preferences.”
I think many will be surprised at the methodology, which is not one I would have chosen. Nevertheless, it may be more sound and logical than other ways of ranking composers with regard to “greatness.”
It's an interesting list to look at.
Personally, I cannot endorse the notion that Chopin should be ranked as the number 10 composer, while Bartok, Shostakovich and Prokofiev are numbers 25, 27 and 28 respectively.
But that's just me.
I find it worthwhile simply to peruse the list, to see which composers I have heard of, listened to and enjoyed, and which draw a blank in my own mind.
[For instance, I have never heard of Orlando di Lasso, who comes up as the 77th greatest composer of all time].…
y chord in Scaler
More than 100 new expressions in triplet feel and across several time signatures
Add bass/inversion display in chord name
Improved accuracy of detection
Reduce the number of duplicate chords in results
Filter-out unlikely chord types to reduce noise
Add ability to detect from a file in the source dropdown
New Modulation Preset - Neo-Riemannian
Create harmonic transformations from any chord
Support custom sounds folder location
Support custom chordsets folder location
Multi-Select Pattern and Pattern Chaining improvements
Add ability to apply extracted voicing to a multi-selection of chords
Ability to export chord names to MIDI markers when dragging to DAW
New Arpeggio Octave Range option
Add ability to select the output MIDI channel
Keys-Lock - Chord Mute function now works properly when used with DAW-Sync
Ability to select and remove multiple notes with lasso in Detect panel
Add ability to synchronise the selected scale across instances
Fix “Right-Click -> Select All” in Pad View
Fix erratic behaviour when deleting from a multi-selection in Pad View
Fix bind to suggested pathways refresh issue in Modulation
Fix UI not redrawing correctly after Clear State
Fix lowercase display for minor chords in Modulation panels
Fix empty large clip when dragging from MIDI Capture
Other fixes and overall stability improvements
ial aesthetic and philosophical ground of his compositional and performing technique.
We ask, "Why are some people's music more liked than others' music," in this thread.
Let me see.
Pull out the old list.
John Cage ranks 59 out of 500, in the list of composers by rank, which is a thoroughly scientific, and therefore, reasonably accurate assessment of his worth.
That's fairly high.
He ranks just above these 20 composers:
60. 58. Scriabin, Alexander 60.969 61. 55. Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel 61.653
62. 71. Wolf, Hugo 63.082
63. 65. Messiaen, Oliver 64.148
64. 56. Janácek, Leos 64.762
65. 75. Scarlatti, Domenico 65.290
66. 60. Falla, Manuel de 65.291
67. 53. Villa-Lobos, Heitor 66.222
68. 81. Gluck, Christopher W. R. von 69.017
69. 76. Paganini, Niccolo 69.612
70. 67. Satie, Erik 71.279
71. 91. Byrd, William 72.011
72. 57. Berg, Alban 72.252
73. 90. Weill, Kurt 74.249
74. 86. Kodály, Zoltán 76.701
75. 79. Webern, Anton (von) 77.015
76. 74. Offenbach, Jacques 77.169
77. 124. Lasso, Orlando di 77.269
78. 130. Josquin Desprez 79.458
79. 77. Borodin, Alexander 81.175
80. 115. Palestrina, Giovanni Pierluigi da 81.194
And he ranks, just below these composers:
40. 44. Purcell, Henry 40.194 41. 31. Saint-Saëns, (Charles-)Camille 40.298
42. 46. Weber, Carl Maria von 42.920
43. 52. Ives, Charles 43.040
44. 39. Hindemith, Paul 44.046
45. 34. Elgar, Edward 45.568
46. 51. Rimsky-Korsakov, Nikolay 45.868
47. 50. Bruckner, Anton 46.197
48. 33. Strauss, Johann Jr. 46.593
49. 47. Mussorgsky, Modest 46.717
50. 78. Bernstein, Leonard 46.859
51. 59. Bellini, Vincenzo 48.540
52. 49. Franck, Cesar 49.262
53. 48. Monteverdi, Claudio 49.916
54. 54. Barber, Samuel 51.091
55. 43. Poulenc, Francis 54.133
56. 61. Gounod, Charles 55.398
57. 66. Massenet, Jules 57.163
58. 93. Sullivan, Arthur 59.090
To what do we attribute the fact that his work is liked more than that of Scriabin, Borodin, Offenbach and Palestrina (and less liked than what was composed by Ives, Hindemith, Bruckner and Saint-Saens)?…