On Wednesday, June 5, 2002, at 07:59 AM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
A good question and I know better than to say Nevah! on this
list, but generally for analytical purposes of pitch content,
very little. I'd say this approach is in keeping with both
atonal and serial analysis. I'll
From: Chuck Israels [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The three most important things in music are: rhythm, rhythm, and
rhythm, in that order.
Chuck:
Surely rhythm, melody and harmony are the eternal musical trinity
- allowing, of course, that the relative importance of each element
may vary
At 3:38 AM -0700 6/05/02, Philip Aker wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2002, at 08:34 PM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
I guess I am more of a Schenkerian than is fashionable these days
(like many jazzers), but in my ears, metre trumps everything - thus
the difference between an ornamental V-I where
Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
However, I'm working on my Grand Unified Music Theory, which explains
all aspects of every style of music in one simple formula. One of the
marvelous advantages of my Theory is that you won't have to actually
listen to the piece, as you will get everything you
At 11:37 AM -0500 6/05/02, Stokes, Randy wrote:
Better yet, like the old prison joke story, you could refer to each possible
piece of music by number. It'd be a pretty *long* number, granted, but
still...
1657328773647892873
Wow, that last number is GORGEOUS! Can I use it, or have you already
I agree with Chuck here -- I list for my students what order I (and I am
very careful to point out that this is my personal order of importance)
I feel musical elements should be thought of:
1) rhythm
2) pitch
3) tempo variations
4) articulations
5) dynamics
I tell them that, of course, we are
David Froom:
The point, though, was to explain the chord progression in
Pachelbel -- the questioner was wondering why it went down a
fourth and then up a step.
Not quite. He asked about the three most common types of root
movement and subsequently asked why the Pachelbel Canon had root
At 4:03 PM -0700 6/03/02, Philip Aker wrote:
David Froom:
And my answer for him was to relate the Pachelbel to the standard
sequential harmonic pattern generated from descending 10ths (or, if
you insist, 3rds).
I don't disagree entirely but this is a different beastie than the
root movements
I hesitated to respond to David Fenton's comments about my comments, since I
hate getting into slugfests with him. But not to answer seems to imply that
I agree with his criticisms.
David, if you will reread my post, you'll see I said that my chord labeling
included non-functional chords, and I
