Re: Chord-Leading

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:52:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Dr.Matt) wrote:

>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, 

If it were private, the three references I cited would not be in
agreement with me.

>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.

Look, this is getting boring. Re social constructs, I repeat, if you
come upon a conversation where music is mentioned as having a
polyphonic texture and you want to think this means nothing other than
that it is not monphonic, mazel tov. 
>
>>>
>>>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.
>>>================
>>