On 22 Jan 2007 at 0:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From the point of view of a > musicologist, saying "how you arrive at the chord" may be > something that can get different "names" for the same [EMAIL PROTECTED] chord > just does not cut it in my world.
I wouldn't say it's "musicologists" who have different names for the same configuration of pitches in different harmonic contexts, but *musicians*. [] > However, my point is that WHY can't y'all agree on ONE name for each > chord? Why several names, regardless of your "musical point of > view?" Why shouldn't we all just forget our native languages and speak Esperanto? It's all about communication, right? Well, in music, the correct chord spellings make it *easier* to read for musicians who are cognizant of the musical context of what they are reading and playing. Misspelling chords is going to make it harder for those musicians to comprehend the musical context (this is not to say that there aren't confusions about chord symbols, most of which happen because the chord symbols themselves are a simplification of what's really going on, so can't always capture everything). This whole issue is the part of music that I have always found hardest for beginning theory students to learn, that music is not about absolute, fixed objects that are unchanging. Music is instead about the changing relationships between the musical materials, at all levels. It is the multi-faceted aspect of this, the fact that one note or chord or motive or melody can mean many different things depending on the context in which it is heard, that makes music interesting and complex. Washing out those complexities in simplified notation is not going to remove the complex relationships -- all it will do is make it harder for the sight-reading musician to perceive them. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
