Le 16 juin 07 à 02:25, David Rastall a écrit :
> On Jun 15, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Howard Posner wrote:
>
>> ...please don't tell us you're "utterly confused" and
>> ask very basic questions, then tell us how offended you are when you
>> get basic answers that don't acknowledge your advanced state of
>> knowledge. Unless you're more interested in impressing everyone as a
>> sage than in actually learning something, you're better off with
>> answers that tell you too much than answers that tell you not
>> enough to
>> avoid the danger of making you feel slighted.
>
> Bit harsh there, Howard. Did you think those remarks about arrogance
> and elitism were directed at you? More likely they were directed at
> me. To the best of my knowledge, I'm the most recent one to have
> made negative remarks about our guitarist cousins.
>
> At least I made some attempt to answer his question about chord
> shapes right now in the 2000's, rather than lapsing into yet another
> of our smart discussions about what harmony *really* meant in the
> 1500's.
David and all
My remark about that was not in any way to be smart, but to try
to understand better. It was really a question
that had come to my mind some time ago when I noticed that several
lute manuals did not treat the question of chords
while many guitar manuals do. (I had in fact hoped to find such
equivalences, and was disappointed not to find any).
I had then thought up an explanation for what I thought was a
significant difference.
However, it may not be significant. It may be that I just happened to
look at those lute manuals that don't treat the question,
or my explanation to myself may not be the right one.
In any case, when I saw this guitarist's message about chords, I
thought this may just be a guitarist's way of approaching
Renaissance music. I was not suggesting that it was invalid. I myself
would have liked to find a manual with lute-chords.
I am no musicologist but that does not prevent me from wanting to
understand more about what "harmony "really meant in the 1500's".
I admit that forty years ago, I was drawn to Renaissance and Baroque
music partly because I was discovering a new continent of sounds,
well I admit that does sound pompous, but true.
(That may be one of the reasons I remain very much a gut person,
while not wanting to impose this on any one else).
I remain interested in what differentiates their sound world from
ours, and I feel it helps me to better appreciate what I am listening
to.
Also, if composers did not consider chords as we do, there could be
some possible contra-sens, if we treat it as though they did.
I admit that I don't know what these may be.
No doubt you will answer that we will never answer that question, as
we can't resurrect the musical
context of the 1500s. Also some may consider that it doesn't matter,
"chord
shapes right now in the 2000's" may well serve us well, even if they
possibly wouldn't
have been recognized as such in the 1500s.
I also notice that for a number of questions I have raised, I have
been told that these
are topics that have been put forward countless times in the past
'"lapsing into yet another
of our smart discussions". I do apologize if this is often the case.
I am relatively recent on the list
and also very naïve, while at the same time having a great desire to
know more.
Regards
Anthony
>
> David Rastall
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.rastallmusic.com
>
>
>
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
