On Mar 22, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 22.03.2007 John Howell wrote:
Would anyone care to argue against that principle? And explain
why? Without appealing to convention or other authority?
By the same logic you could start writing out minor keys with extra
an extra raised 7th. So that G minor would have 2 flats and one
sharp. There is a lot of reasons to do that, and only convention
stops you.
Oh boy! A big can of worms.
Part of the point here is that this is a language - a written one
describing an aural tradition and aural communication. It has been
my experience that all attempts to write down what is heard (spoken
or played) are both woefully incomplete and often ambiguous. What we
hear as tonality is no exception.
A Blues in Bb, which can be predominantly mixolydian, is written in
two flats rather than three. (We like to preserve the leading tone
in our idea of the "key".) Why we don't feel that way about G minor
is one of those mysteries of convention where "logical" arguments can
be made for more than one point of view. (Do optimists want F Sharp
and pessimists F natural?)
I am trying to make sense of the numbering discussion, and can find
compelling arguments for different methods. The numbers represent
heard "form" to me, so I am inclined to practices that support that
experience. From a purely graphic point of view, however, that is
harder to support. YMMV
Chuck
So why don't we?
Sorry, John, but I really, really disagree with you, as far as any
music in classical form is concerned. After that, do whatever works
best.
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Chuck Israels
230 North Garden Terrace
Bellingham, WA 98225-5836
phone (360) 671-3402
fax (360) 676-6055
www.chuckisraels.com
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
