You're quite right that these are modern terms and
that this assumes a modern conception of interval
content. However, how many of us fluently think in
terms of the gamut, mutation, etc. when we play
renaissance or medieval repertoire? Do any of you out
there think about and analyze this music using the
same concepts that the composers did? Does it matter?
I am, to a certain extent, truely asking these
questions.
As for myself, I tend to view things largely
through a modified prism of the freshman-year
common-practice theory system in which I first learned
how to analyze music. With a few adaptations and
modifications for certain general EM practices, it
seems to work alright in getting underneath the skin
of most things. I have the feeling that this is what
the majority of us do.
...and regarding all of the other scales, most
Westerners have a hard enough time learning the ropes
with the three scales (one major, two minor - a tiny
fraction of the possibilities!) that are used for the
bulk of our "classical" repertoire - just sit in on
any college level sight-singing course and you'll be
rewarded with a stunning variety of unintended
temperments and even improvised synthetic scales. ;-)
Chris
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Herbert Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > (unison, minor
> > second, major second, ..., major seventh, octave,
>
> you realize that those are terms that relate to
> MODERN theory, and they relate to
> the common european scale, ignoring many other
> scales in use in the world.
>
> During the middle ages and the early renaissance
> other concepts were in use, ones
> equally deserving of this sort of game to aid one in
> 'drilling'.
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
>
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
