Re: Chord-Leading

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:57:55 GMT, Dr.Matt wrote:

> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Peter J Ross  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:13:54 GMT, Dr.Matt wrote:
>>> dominant--but only when a  chord which isn't the tonic of the
>>> global key is decorated by a local key in which it is tonic. By
>>> admitting that chord-leading is voice-leading, you are finally
>>> admitting that multi-chord music is in fact multi-voice music.
>>
>>Not unless the voices show some independence.
>
> Can you sing all the notes of any chord at once? I doubt it.
> David Hykes and some Tibetan monks claim to be able to do it for
> a very limited set of chords. Every chord is a multi-voice music.

Acoustically, yes, even a melody doubled at the octave is multi-voice
music. I suppose that would be the best place to sart Alice's
education.

>><http://www.petitmorte.net/pjr/star.mid>
>>
>>The first phrase is a succession of first-inversion chords à la
>>Dunstable, and has no voice-leading at all - everything is generated
>>from the intervals of the melody. The second phrase is equally ugly
>>but the three voices are to some extent independent of each other.
>
> It has the sort of voice-leading called "Planing", and that's a separate
> matter from the fact that it's multi-voice music.

I ought to have made a simpler example - perhaps with first-species
counterpoint contrasted with organum - but I concede that the
distinction I was making has nothing to do with the distinction you
were making.

-- 
PJR :-)
mhm34x8  Smeeter #30
news:alt.fan.pjr  news:alt.alcatroll
Usenet Valhalla (Circle Five)
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Executive Vice-President)
Baron Jacksonville in the Usenet House of Lords

(Remove NOSPAM to reply)