Am Donnerstag, 26. Juli 2018 20:44 CEST, Tristan von Neumann <tristanvonneum...@gmx.de> schrieb: > Musicians and Music Theorists are rarely one and the same person :)
Sorry, but that's the biggest bulls**t I've ever heard! Tinctoris (choir master, composer and most likely a singer)? Gafurius (composer, maestro di capella at the Milan cathedral) - not a musician? Dowland (rumors say he wrote some lute music) - only known for his theoretical works (Micrologus)? Muffat the Elder (author of one of the best figured bass treaties) - never wrote (and played) music? J. B. Samber (author of an impressive church organist method) - not an organist at the Salzburg cathedral? Mattheson ("Wunderkind" singing and playing organ on a preofessional level at age 9, worked as an opera singer, first as a soprano, later as a tenor) - not a musician? Gasparini - C.P.E. Bach etc. .... oh well. > It is not necessary to name or classify anything while making music - > Music Theory is mostly after the fact. The kind of music theory you probly talk about [1] simply didn't exist during the time period we disuss here. Most (if not all) of the before-mentioned authors would probably describe their work as a method/guide in student learning to produce (better) music. Naming things can be extremly helpful in teaching. Just have a look at the some of the works titles. Samber's 'Manuductio ad Organum' litteraly means 'guiding (the students) hands during organ playing' (and, C.P.E. writes, this is exactly what old Bach did). > Theory is taught, but novelties appear regardless - see Monteverdi and > Artusi. And yet, Monteverdi took great care to provide a "theoretical" framework for his novelty. The 'seconda prattica' discussion is _not_ one of 'theory' vs. 'la-la creative freedom'. It's about two musicians having (often amazingly subtle) differences in what they consider aesthetically pleasing (or, maybe even over the question of whether music always has to be aesthetically pleasing). Cheers, RalfD [1] which in english would probably be called musicology. No, they are not the same. > Am 26.07.2018 um 19:11 schrieb Leonard Williams: > > How would musicians like Dowland or Johnson have named their > > chords? Were they thinking in chord progressions, modalities, > > incidental chords arising in polyphonic cadences? I guess this is a > > question of music theory evolution. > > Leonard > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Leonard Williams <arc...@verizon.net> > > To: lute <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > > Sent: Wed, Jul 25, 2018 8:54 am > > Subject: [LUTE] chord names > > As chordal music (as opposed to polyphonic) became more prevalent, > > and many modes became history, how were chords named? G maj, A min, > > ...? Tonic, dominant, etc? When did this start? > > Just curious. > > Regards, > > Leonard Williams > > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > -- > > > > References > > > > 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > >