Re: Chord-Leading

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Richard Ratner  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:09:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Richard Ratner  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On 30 Nov 2003 21:28:36 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Inotmark) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>From: Richard Ratner
>>>>
>>>>>It did not fork back again. The meaning of the word in conversations
>>>>>about music is the same, however it has been extended by  a special
>>>>>case added for technology which has not made it into general reference
>>>>
>>>>blah blah blah...
>>>>
>>>>a dictionary is a historical document detailing how words have been
>used in the
>>>>passed. a dictionary is not prescriptive or proscriptive, it is merely
>>>>descriptive.  furthermore, dictionary listings are not always complete.
>>>
>>>First of all, a dictionary is not a historical document. I suggest you
>>>use one and look up "dictionary". (By the way, if you didn't
>>>apparently avoid dictionaries, perhaps you would be able to
>>>distinguish "past" from "passed".)
>>>
>>>>Historical Anthology of Music uses the term "Early Polyphony" to describe
>>>>parallel organum.  This book is still in use as a standard textbook, and
>>>>therefore this usage is still current.  
>>>>
>>>>End of debate, by definition.
>>>
>>>Were we debating "Early Polyphony"?
>>>
>>>I wish people would read entire threads and not snip before
>>>contributing. I mentioned organum earlier in the thread as being
>>>before the fork in the definition that you half-snipped. Yes, you are
>>>correct that "EARLY polyphony" distinguishes music as not monophony
>>>when dealing in the 11th century. I repeat, the word "polyphony" has
>>>evolved, as evidenced by my three references, so that  in addition to
>>>meaning "not monophony", it means "not homophony". If it did not, then
>>>it would become nearly obsolete except to describe 11th century
>>>non-monophonic music, since practically all music written after the
>>>11th century would be "polyphonic". However, the word occurs all over
>>>musical writing to describe music of all eras, used exactly as my
>>>three sources describe it. So, again, if, when you come upon the very
>>>common phrase "polyphonic texture", it means nothing to you other than
>>>that there is more than one pitch sounding at once, go in peace. It
>>>will mean more to me.
>>>
>>>End of debate, by definitions (3) and common sense.
>>
>>Do you also cite Merriam-Webster for medical information?
>
>Matt, stop being silly. Let us just end this by agreeing that,
>regardless of the sources of our respective understandings,  when you
>see the phrase "polyphonic texture" in print or hear it in
>conversation, you will think it means a section of music which is not
>monophonic, and when I do,  I will think it means a section which is
>neither monophonic nor homophonic. Can we now part as friends?

I dont even know you!


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