Talk:Jay Greenberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of the WikiProject contemporary music, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary music subjects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

The update story on 60 Minutes just now said that his parents had no musical ability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.191.44 (talk • contribs)

Not actually true. I know the composer's father and he is a quite good amateur pianist. 130.132.144.169 20:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Works

How can he have a Symphony no. 5 without having no. 1, 2, 3 and 4? Is that just because it was the only symphony which he released, or does he pick random numbers for his symphonies? ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 11:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Symphony numbering is not so clear and logical as you suggest. Although in the case of Greenberg, he has actually composed 1, 2, 3, and 4, and I suspect more. As far as we know, Schubert didn't even bother to number his, and Bach seems not to have numbered any of his compostions. The BWV numbers were assigned by a music publisher, as were the K. numbers for Mozart's stuff. In both cases, they seem to have gotten the chronological sequence wrong in several respects. For that matter, there are similar issues with Hayden's work and with Vivaldi's. Many issues in musicology, or musical archaeology, are less than well understood. 67.86.174.12 12:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh ok... thanks for that. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 15:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I suppose, unlike earlier composers, he [i.e. Greenberg] would have numbered the symphonies chronologically himself to prevent confusion... although there are disadvantages to this system. Someone like Brahms, for instance, didn't number his string quartets because he claims to have written twenty of them before he could conscientiously allow one to be published; if he had numbered them all, his first string quartet might have been published as #21, which would prompt the question of what happened to the other twenty (and likely lower Brahms's esteem in the eyes of the German music critics and listeners alike). If Greenberg does choose to renumerate his symphonies in this way, as symphonies 1 to 4 may have simply not been very good, he'll have to most likely number his next symphonies as #1-4, as this one already has gathered some reputation as #5. (Although, I preferred the quintet anyway.) 130.132.144.169 20:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clairaudience

Would it be reasonable to speculate whether Greenberg's ability could be likened to clairaudience? In the latest 60 Minutes program it was described rather vividly how he hears the music performed fully orchestrated in his head. He himself also used the term "multi-channeling" which he had been told was the name for his ability to hear two or three works performed simultaneously and still retaining an additional (apparently rather undisturbed) "channel" for dealing with everyday life. __meco 14:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

um, no I don't think that would be reasonable, and many composers can hear multiple layers of melody in their head. Drsmoo 09:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the latter part of what you write certainly has no bearing on my question. __meco 16:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Clairaudience redirects to clairvoyance, and skimming that article makes me suspect this is something close to a branch of the occult. This article currently includes these remarks: "Greenberg describes the process by which he receives the music in such a way that he hears the music performed inside his head, and often several musical pieces simultaneously, and he is then able to simply notate what he has listened to. He rarely needs to make corrections to what he has notated." "Receives the music" in itself seems to me an odd way to say "composes". The suggestion appears to be that Greenberg is taking dictation from God or some such thing. It so happens that the average person, musician or not, very often "hears...music performed inside his head, and often several musical pieces simultaneously", especially at night before bed when his mind enters an alpha state. There's nothing unusual about that, but it also so happens that in the vast majority (at least) of these cases the music in question has been previously composed by someone else, is retained in the memory of an auditor, and is being rehashed at the time. It's possible, I suppose, that Greenberg actually composes in the normal way but thinks so rapidly that he almost immediately forgets his thought process and this gives him the illusion that he is merely listening and transcribing rather than truly composing. A normal well-trained composer (in contradistinction to my "average person" above) should be able to invent melody in his head in real time, knowing precisely what pitches and rhythms he is thinking of by name such that he could notate them if he cared to, and hearing them in his mind's ear more or less simultaneously. I'm inclined to call this improvisation rather than composition, and it strikes me that it's possible (another, maybe related, possibility) that this is more or less what Greenberg is doing, just with greater proficiency. TheScotch (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I propose that "Greenberg describes the process by which he receives the music in such a way that he hears..." be changed to "Greenberg says he hears...", eliminating fourteen wasteful words and removing the POV term "receives". I'll change it now, and if anyone objects he can explain his objection here. TheScotch (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)