On Feb 3, 2005, at 9:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 at 21:51, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Feb 3, 2005, at 8:10 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 at 12:07, Andrew Stiller wrote:
In any event, "emancipation of the dissonance" certainly does not imply elimination of the consonant. I recently had a conversation with a couple of young composers, one of whom had never heard the term. The other one helpfully said, "it means you don't have to resolve them." I don't think anyone could possibly define it better.
How do you tell the difference between the consonance and the dissonance, then?
Without reference to other music or a system of rules not reflected in the musical text where the dissonance is never resolved, the two terms are simply meaningless.
At least, so it seems to *me*.
I had always assumed it meant that dissonance is no longer an issue. Phrases, structure, melody, etc., no longer revolve around whether dissonance is resolved or not, as nobody needs to pay attention to that aspect any more, thus "emancipating" the music to other quests.
But I may have been wrong.
Well, that's all well and good.
But if there's no dissonance, there's also no consonance.
You can't change the definition of one without altering the definition of the other, as they are simply two sides of the same coin.
Right. No dissonance, no consonance. It's not about that any more.
You have correctly understood, grasshopper!
Christopher
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
