In article <slrnd9krrb.5ue.slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Albert Silverman <slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On 2005-05-29, Joe Roberts <> wrote:
>>
>> "Albert Silverman" wrote:
>>
>> Michael Mossey wrote:
>>> > ...
>>> > I.e., in real music the "chords" are
>>> >always in a context and cannot be
>>> > understood separately from that context.
>>
>>> They certainly *can* be understood out of
>>> context, just as a noun or verb or adverb or
>>> clause or subject or predicate, etc., etc.,
>>> can be understood apart from a literary context.
>>
>> But you put your "Chord Construction Procedure" innately in the context
of
>> the even-tempered twelve-tone scale, and then claim the procedure is
>> "outside of musical context".
>
>A twelve-tone, even-tempered scale is *not* a musical context! It is
>simply a way of specifying a discrete set of twelve vibration
frequencies.
>These various frequencies can certainly be specified without reference to
>any musical context. I don't know what gives you the idea that this
cannot
>be done.
>
>
>>
>>
>> > They certainly *can* be understood ...
>>
>> Purely out of context, Webster's has 13 definitions for the word,
"can".
>>
>> Can it, Al.
>>
>>
>> There probably aren't too many issues with your constructing chords
from
>> twelve-tone scale intervals, per se. An issue is your claim to doing
it
>> outside any "musical context" while simultaneously insulting other
sources
>> of information and your readers' intelligence.
>
>If "other sources" don't understand what I have just pointed out, they
>deserve to be insulted.
>
>If any reader does not understand what I have just pointed out, he/she is
>not very intelligent and I have therefore not insulted what does not
>exist!
> >
>> If, for example, you'd claim that your chord construction procedure is
>> irrespective of any specific _key_ (instead of "musical context"), and
in
>> doing so strictly maintain the link between objectivity and humility,
you'd
>> do, well, better. You'd also save thousands of words.
>
>I am not here to debate the meaning of "key," whatever that may be. The
>meaning of "key" is *irrelevant to* my explanation of chord construction.
>
>Period. Double Period, etc., etc.
>
>
>
>Albert Silverman
>(Al is in Wonderland!)
>where relevance is irrelevant
>
>
>
>> Joe Roberts
--
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/
|
