In article <slrndbciii.sc2.slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Albert Silverman <slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On 2005-06-20, Melodious Thunk <replyto@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In article <slrndba0p7.iv4.slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Albert Silverman
><slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Traditional composition is indeed chord-based, whereas the theoretical
>>> principles which Schoenberg later came to embrace are *not*
chord-based.
>>
>> You made a previous statement that wasn't so all-encompassing. I
>disagree that 'traditional'
>> composition is 'chord-based.'
>
>How can you possibly make this claim?
>
>Just look at the analyses which run throughout traditional textbooks like
>Piston and Aldwell-Schachter, etc., etc., etc. What you will see are lots
>and lots of Roman Numerals with figurations attached. What in Wonderland
>do you think these notations refer to?
>
>Do you think that they refer to melodies?
>
>Do you think that they refer to timing?
>
>To meter?
>
>To harmonic rhythm?
>---------------------------
>Tell me; I would like to know.
>
>
>Albert Silverman
>(Al is in Wonderland!)
>
>
>>
>> To the OP: are you referring to Schoenberg's thin little "Structural
>Functions of Harmony"? I
>> got quite a lot out of it.
Al, you're making an equivocation fallacy. The notations you see
in those books pertain to contrapuntal harmony, not to your own
invented category of "chord-based composition".
You yourself have clarified that "chord-based" means "constructed of a
single melody plus chords".
The only place where your category has any *potential* salience is in
lead sheets, and the level of analysis you *might* provide for them is
redundant to the notation already on the lead sheets.
You have no idea what you're talking about when you refer to the
contents of the Schoenberg, and have no idea what the other texts are
talking about. But you can cure that malady by actually sitting down
and learning to play some of the music they talk about. I suggest you
start with Mozart's sonata in C K.545. When you've actually played
through that, you might begin to be able to understand the discussion
on Page 1 of Aldwell and Schachter. As things stand, you haven't
penetrated
Page 1 of any of these texts at all, and thus have no business lecturing
others on the topic.
--
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/
|
