On 4 Feb 2005 at 8:23, Christopher Smith wrote: > 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!
Well, then, you disagree with Andrew, who said (still included in the quotes above): > >>> 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 was disagreeing with that, as not resolving dissonance means it's no different from consonance, which means there is no longer a distinction that can be maintained except by external reference to rules that are not themselves demonstrated in the way the music itself behaves. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
