John Howell wrote:
At 8:55 PM -0600 10/6/09, Bruce Petherick wrote:
You could also argue that most 11C - 16C pieces are one "chord" but
that may be pushing the boundary.
?????????????
Sorry, but I can't see that at all. Monophonic chant has no harmonic
element at all (unless you add a drone to it). Organum has harmonic
changes as the troped part changes notes, and later discant organum
and conductus have rather clear harmonic changes. Any later
polyphony has distinct harmonic changes as well, even though they are
not Common Practice harmonies. There was a LOT of music dating from
before 1680!
I am glad we now have this as an off-topic mail! My point is that many,
many people hear chant as relating to an underlying harmony, or tonality
(A new composition student last weekend was the latest personal
experience of this phenomena). I am not saying this is correct at all,
but only pointing out that to contemporary ears, there is a harmonic
content to the chant (I suppose that same could be said of any piece for
monophonic solo instrument). Now the historical argument (which will
never be totally finished) is in which period we historically have
"clear harmonic changes". I am of the musicological party that doesn't
think that Palestrina has "harmonic changes" but has polyphonic
tonality. YMMV.
There is also examples of the New Complexity composers only using
one chord or tonality, but their definition may be rather extended
as to what a chord or tonality is.
True, so how about "In C" and other minimalist works?
I didn't think about "In C" but I think that is definitely a one
tonality piece!
B
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
