Well there's nothing wrong in being reminded of how people used to think. But what was done for centuries isn't often what is correct - which is why being objective is the best way to go. People thought bleeding you would cure you for a very long time, and even for a short time feeling bumps on someone's head was also permissible psychology. Things do change, yes. I hope to Hades that I never see a doctor who tries to balance my Humours.
But the path to how things really work is the scientific one - since it is the most objective method we currently have. -William In a message dated 10/15/2009 7:19:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Another thing that is also forgotten is that equal temperament was by no means universal. Depending on the temperament used, some keys would have better 5ths or 3rds. Susan Thompson -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David A. Jewell Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 12:22 PM To: The Horn List Subject: Re: [Hornlist] "Keeping Score" with Objectivity From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] ...While certain keys were associated with certain moods often in the romantic period it also doesn't mention the fact that some keys were chosen because of specific instruments or specific instrumentation. It goes back centuries further than the romantic period. The concept of specific emotions or "moods" associated with specific modes [the precursors of keys] started with the ancient Greeks. It was codified in many medieval music theory texts. The spedifics of instruments and instrumentation were really only secondary to emotional considerations usually. Besides, when it comes to that it is really only the brass that needed to be considered, and we all know about transposition! There is absolutely no way to objectively say that a particular key will always be a certain mood to everyone - and there is no objective way to compose anything that will always convey the same mood to everyone. This is entirely true, especially today. However, in the hundreds of years that this was in vogue I would venture to say that everyone was "taught" what was meant by certain modes and melodic figurations. For example, we can easily objectively say if something is out of tune by measuring it. However when it comes to the correct or incorrect interpretation of a piece we cannot simply measure something to find out if it is correct. I'm a science nerd, so it always bothers me when people try to apply subjective ideas objectively. That is true for today, once again. However it is only true for the last 200 years or so that the "Scientic Viewpoint" has been the prevailing and majority one. I do not see any purpose in losing the perspective of the composer and the populace that would have heard the music just to make the creation of that music fit our modern viewpoint. We must use our knowledge and persepctive by all means, but we must include the predominant mindset of the age in which the composer lived in order to fully understand more of the why of its creation. It is my belief that unless the composer wrote in prose exactly what made him or her compose a specific piece we can only use our intimation, or as Nero Wolfe would say "knowledge guided by experience" to come as close as we can to that conclusion. Music will always be subjective in interpretation and such, but it is standard practice in solving problems to use subjective views in an objective framework to help solve the problem [in this case the "why did he write it the way he did? problem.] Didn't mean to get all longwinded and such, but you know how it goes, there is always at least one or two subjects that ignite one's ardor. thanks for letting me throw in my $.03 worth. Paxmaha ________________________________ _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/didoslament%40earth link.net __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4512 (20091015) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4512 (20091015) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/valkhorn%40aol.com _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
