In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Harold Owen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Thanks for your reply. It seems we are soul brothers. It's really
>interesting how theorists (them) and composers (me) approach music
>differently.
Although you don't specify, I presume that you agree with my
compositional aims (after Ellington) rather than my jaundiced view of
Schenker.
>If you would like to see a composer's theory book, take
>a look at my "Music Theory Resource Book" published by Oxford. The
>same can be said for my counterpoint book, "Modal and Tonal
>Counterpoint: Josquin to Stravinsky," published by Shirmer Books.
I shall look out for them. Unfortunately our local university seems to
be about to abolish its Music Department, but I expect they will keep
its library.
I have had several arguments with my Professor because I have never seen
a convincing statement from an analyst specifying what s/he thought was
the nature of the subject matter. My main candidates are:
1) The way the composer thought, or might have thought about the
work;
2) The way a listener thinks, or might think about the work;
3) The way a performer should think (some performers do Schenkerian
analyses before they perform);
3) Marks on paper (in which case the process is pointless).
Of these, 1) and 2) ought to be supported by more evidence than I have
ever seen in any book about analysis. 3) has the nature of a command
rather than a statement, though evidence would be welcome that a
particular analytical method had some value.
Any thoughts.
--
Ken Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web site: http://www.mooremusic.org.uk/
I reject emails > 100k automatically: warn me beforehand if you want to send one
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
