On 5 Feb 2005 at 19:54, Darcy James Argue wrote: > No one is arguing that the Western system of functional harmony is > "natural" or innate. . . .
Perhaps no one in this particular discussion has explicitly argued that, but there are lots of people who *do* believe exactly that, and that body of research has, in fact, been cited (at least elliptically) in this discussion. > . . . Only that there might well be some innateness to > more general concepts of "consonance" and "dissonance." I reject the word "innate." There are explanations of why, acoustically, certain intervals tend to be perceived as exceptional, but that is *not* the same thing as "innateness." And the people who make a habit of writing about this subject tend to make assertions well beyond what you've made (even excusing the unwarranted use of the word "innate"). When you join that side of the argument, it's hard for those familiar with the debate to know whether you're in agreement with the wingnuts or not. -- 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
