Re: Chord-Leading

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Richard Ratner  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:23:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Richard Ratner  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:02:36 GMT, nightingale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Homophony
>>>>
>>>>Polyphonic music in which all melodic parts move together at more or 
>>>>less the same pace. A further distinction is sometimes made between 
>>>>homophonic textures that are homorhythmic (ex.1) and those in which 
>>>>there is a clear differentiation between melody and accompaniment
>>>
>>>I have a real problem with this definition, because it is misleading.
>>>The fact is, nearly 1000 years ago or thereabouts, nearly all music
>>>became "polyphonic", in the sense that monophony went out of fashion,
>>>and it has remianed so to this day. 
>>
>>So there's no such thing as unaccompanied flute partitas? Interesting.
>
>Please go to www.merriam-webster.com and look up "nearly".
>>
>>> For this reason, calling this or
>>>that music polyphonic just because more than one pitch sounds at one
>>>time became obsolete.  At some point, as shown in the three references
>>>I provided, the word "polyphony" forked into polyphony and homophony,
>>>to distinguish  music constructed with independent voices from that
>>>constructed with melody and accompaniment. So when one hears that a
>>>texture is polyphonic, it should mean to them more than that the music
>>>has more than one voice -- it should mean that the music is not
>>>homophonic or monophonic.
>>
>>Perhaps the way you'd like words to be used would be more logical
>>to you. But if you rigidly stick to that logic, you'll have
>>trouble conversing with others who don't. In discussions of music,
>
>Again, I pose a question to you which I did in a previous post, and
>you snipped,  relating to conversing with others about music and the
>definition of "polyphonic".
>
>"If you
>overhear a conversation about a piece of music which is mentioned as
>having a polyphonic texture, are you really, truly incapable of
>eliminating Satie's Gymnopedie #1 as the topic of discussion, or are
>you just being contrary?" 

It would be wrong to eliminate that piece, indeed, whereas it
might be right to eliminate Syrinx.

>>The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians gives coverage
>>which general and condensed single-volume dictionaries cannot.
>>I suggest you make use of it. You can advocate for a reform
>>of the English language--but if you want to be understood, you'll
>>also have to use it the way it is now.
>
>The way it is now is the way I use it, as proven by my three
>references. When I hear a conversation about a piece having a
>polyphonic texture, I will know what the speakers are talking about
>and not talking about. That's the way it is, regardless of what
>certain musicologists may say. 

You are welcome to use your own private musicological language, 
of course, and to imagine language as a set of facts rather
than social constructs, if you feel like it. I've done what I can for you.

>>
>>Check out Mark Twain on illogical spelling:
>>
>>==================
>>        For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped
>>to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer
>>be part of the alphabet.  The only kase in which "c" would be retained
>>would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later.  Year 2
>>might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the
>>same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with
>>"i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
>>        Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear
>>with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12
>>or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.
>>Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi
>>ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz
>>ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
>>        Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud
>>hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
>>================
>


-- 
       Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
                        Music: Splendor in Sound
  Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/