In article <slrnd9k11f.f81.slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Albert Silverman <slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On 2005-05-29, Fiona <fiona@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> "Albert Silverman" <slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd9i869.sv5.slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On 2005-05-28, Fiona <fiona@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > "Albert Silverman" <slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>>> >> MUSIC 101: CHORD CONSTRUCTION
>>> >> by Albert Silverman
>>> >> May 27, 2005
>>> >> -----------------------------
>>> >> A "chord" is a group of three or four *tones* (not notes)
>>> >
>>> > Why are you prejudice against two note chords?
>>> >
>>>
>>> In *chord-based* music (such as popular songs, ballads, folk tunes,
>>> broadway musicals, etc., etc.), a "chord" is composed of *three or
four*
>>> tones in certain interval configurations (which I list as chord
>>> construction formulas in my article).
>>
>> Some of the oldest traditions in folk music are based purely on solo
>> monophonic instrustruments (like flutes, pan-pipes, or various types
reed
>> horns) or monophonic instruments with percussion. Somehow I can't
envisage a
>> shephard boy sitting on a rock in the hills and playing his flute while
he
>> tended his flock worrying about chord sequences.
>
>Monophonic music is *not* chord-based music, even though certain types of
>melody may imply particular chords.
>>
>>> Two tones, no matter what interval they form, do not qualify as a
"chord"
>>> for use in such music. This is not due to any prejudice on my part.
While
>>> traditional chord-based theory does not limit a chord two four tones
>>> or less, a traditional chord requires at least *three* tones.
>>
>> Traditional triad according to traditional music theory, but you would
have
>> to bring some serious proof if you want to convince me (or anyone else
I
>> suspect) that tradition doesn't consider two notes played
simultaneously to
>> be a chord. But anyway, how can you invoke traditional concepts to
sup****t
>> your theory when you generally try to present your theory as an
alternative
>> to traditional theory.
>
>I am not trying to present my theory as an alternative to traditional
>theory. That is not my purpose at all!
>
>My purpose is to present the applicable musical principles. If any part
of
>"traditional" theory presents these principles *rationally and
>coherently and with self-consistency*, then I accept that. However, as is
>most often the case, when traditional theory is nonsensical and/or
>incoherent and/or self-contradictory, etc., etc., then I will of course
>reject it for exactly what it is. I see no need to perpetuate absurdity
>in the name of preserving tradition.
>
>
>
>Albert Silverman
>(Al is in Wonderland!)
>where relevance is irrelevant
>and tradition is......
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
|
