In article <slrndakuft.fo1.slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Albert Silverman <slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On 2005-06-10, michaelwcho@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<michaelwcho@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Albert. I am studying it to learn more about modulation and the
>> various possibilities available to me.
>
>But before you can understand what is meant by a "modulation," you must
>understand what is meant by "key."
>
> From the little I know, it
>> seems that if you know the various keys a certain chord is in, you can
>> use that chord as a "pivot" or way to bridge between those two
>> different keys.
>
>The use of a "pivot" chord is a matter of traditional style; it is not a
>matter of musical *principle*. If you are trying to learn traditional
>style, then you of course need to learn about pivot chords and such
>things. However, if you trying to understand what "key" is about, then
you
>need not worry about getting from one key to another, as it were.
>
>My point about "relevance" is that what is referred to as "key" is a
>hodge-podge of self-contradiction and irrationality. What is *really*
>important about key is not which particular chords are "in" a certain
key,
>but rather about the notion of a tonal center as the nucleus of harmonic
>activity, along with the notion of tensions in various chords, etc., etc.
>
> So, if I were writing a progression in C, I could use
>> F and then jump from that chord to, say, the key of Bb, since F is in
>> both C and Bb.
>
>See my above comments.
>>
>> Also, I have found that studying this sort of thing, and harmony/theory
>> in general, helps me aurally identify what is going on in the music.
>
>I doubt that this is true, even though I do not doubt that you believe
it.
>I agree with you, however, that you must understand the principles of
>"chord-based" music, which is not at all the same as what is referred to
>traditionally as "theory."
>
>> When I have a system to help me order the events I hear, I can retain
>> and use that knowledge much more efficiently.
>
>I would not call it a "system" that you are looking for. I would call it
>an understanding of certain musical principles, which is indeed a
laudable
>goal.
>
>Unfortunately, so many people who claim that they are seeking an
>*understanding* are really seeking the "answers" to some tests that they
>may be required to take in the future, in some course or another. I hope
>that you are not one of these people, since "learning to the test" is not
>going to teach you what you need to know!
>
>
>
>Albert Silverman
>(Al is in Wonderland!)
>where relevance is irrelevant
>>
>> Thanks for the reply.
>>
Demonstrate with music, Al.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://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/
|
