- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
- Date: 2002年8月16日 08:17:10 -0700
- To: "'bhaugen'" <linkage@interaccess.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
- Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E7C960A@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
Yes, I was thinking of posting on that subject. That was why I was so surprised to hear that "orchestration" in IT involves a "conductor". In musical circles orchestration refers more to a composition activity than anything about performance. Once orchestrated, in fact a musical work can be performed without a conductor, and in fact for small ensembles that's the norm. -----Original Message----- From: bhaugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 6:41 AM To: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: RE: "Orchestration" and "Choreography" Orchestration \Or`ches*tra"tion,円 n. (Mus.) The arrangement of music for an orchestra; orchestral treatment of a composition; -- called also instrumentation. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, (c) 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. Doesn't say anything about conducting. In Duke Ellington's band, Duke often composed the melodies, and Billy Strayhorn often did the orchestration: assigned parts to instruments, wrote the sheets for each player, etc. Duke led (but rarely conducted) the band. Christopher Ferris wrote (but disagreed with): > In general, I think that most people have been using the terms > somewhat interchangably, e.g. without really thinking about or > inferring any hidden meaning. I think that is the state of affairs. W3C can of course make words mean whatever you want, but will the world go along? -Bob Haugen
Received on Friday, 16 August 2002 11:17:50 UTC