In article <slrndff50n.see.slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Albert Silverman <slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On 2005-08-07, Doc <docsavage20@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> I'm a lifelong trumpet player, and understand chord construction and
certain
>> elements of chord movement but a topic that has long remained somewhat
fuzzy
>> to me is the topic of chord "function".
>>
>> I get the idea of certain strong, obvious movements like I - IV - V -
I
>> or ii - V - I but then when topics like what to name a particular
chord
>> ("depends on its function") or secondary dominants - "such and such
>> functions as a V of ii" or whatever comes up, I've never heard an
>> explanation that really allows me to wrap my brain around it.
>
>And it is *guaranteed* that you won't get one here!!
>
>The obvious reason is that the "theory" which is so dear to the hearts of
>our Wonderful residents is pure BUNKO. It has no sensible definition of
>"function" to give you. So forget about it.
>
>>
>> Any insight will be appreciated.
>>
>
>No it will not, for a number of reasons. Before you can begin to
>understand what music theory is really about (not what happens to be
>presented *here*), you have to become reasonably proficient on a
>*keyboard* instrument.
>
>And that's a *fact*.
>
>
>Albert Silverman
>(Al is in Wonderland!)
>where relevance is irrelevant
>and Guitarists remain Frustrated because they cannot read music
Yes, Al, we know we're guaranteed to not get a meaningful answer
to any question in a posting by you. You don't have to remind us of it.
--
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/
|
