W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > August 2002

RE: "Orchestration" and "Choreography"

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 08:17:10 -0700
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E7C960A@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "'bhaugen'" <linkage@interaccess.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

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\, 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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:04 GMT