Hi Martin (and all), thanks for your interesting posting! Mainly I agree, but still a couple modest comments (in my limited English):
On Thu, 05 May 2011 17:26:13 +0100, Martin Shepherd <[email protected]> wrote: > In historical lute music, there are already several different "harmonic > languages", or at least compositional styles, though they are all what > we might call "tonal" music of one kind or another. "Atonal" music may > not be so suitable - see under question 2. Actually music up to the beginnings of the 17th century was mainly modal, not tonal; it was based on modes, not on the I-IV-V-I style tonal harmony progressions. That "Shcenkerial" idiom could perhaps be called "amodal", as later the escape from the tonal harmony was called "atonal"...;-) > People who play the lute typically do so because they are interested in > music of the past, but people who listen may be just as interested in > the lute per se, as an instrument with a particular voice. The only music there is, is the music of this moment. In this sense all music is "modern music". Music "in the past" was heard by persons long time ago passed. One can even claim that music exists only when it happens - when you hear it. When a piece ends, its "music" is gone... Best wishes, Arto To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
