On Wednesday, June 5, 2002, at 07:59 AM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
>> A good question and I know better than to say "Nevah!" on this
>> list, but generally for analytical purposes of pitch content,
>> very little. I'd say this approach is in keeping with both
>> atonal and serial analysis.
: Chuck Israels; Finale
Subject: Re: [Finale] Re: Pachelbel's canon
Just as a matter of interest: as a choir conductor and choral
composer/arranger, meaning of the lyrics comes very high on my list. I
sometimes don't care if notes are off pitch, not in beat and all the
other aspects, but m
Just as a matter of interest: as a choir conductor and choral
composer/arranger, meaning of the lyrics comes very high on my list. I
sometimes don't care if notes are off pitch, not in beat and all the
other aspects, but meaning has to be conveyed to the audience no matter
what. No meaning, an
I agree with Chuck here -- I list for my students what order I (and I am
very careful to point out that this is my personal order of importance)
I feel musical elements should be thought of:
1) rhythm
2) pitch
3) tempo variations
4) articulations
5) dynamics
I tell them that, of course, we are
At 11:37 AM -0500 6/05/02, Stokes, Randy wrote:
>Better yet, like the old prison joke story, you could refer to each possible
>piece of music by number. It'd be a pretty *long* number, granted, but
>still...
>
>1657328773647892873
Wow, that last number is GORGEOUS! Can I use it, or have you alre
Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
> However, I'm working on my Grand Unified Music Theory, which explains
> all aspects of every style of music in one simple formula. One of the
> marvelous advantages of my Theory is that you won't have to actually
> listen to the piece, as you will get everything y
At 10:40 PM +1000 6/5/02, Kenneth Kuhlmann wrote:
> > From: "Chuck Israels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> The three most important things in music are: rhythm, rhythm, and
>> rhythm, in that order.
>>
>
>Chuck:
>Surely rhythm, melody and harmony are the eternal musical trinity
>- allowing, of cou
At 3:38 AM -0700 6/05/02, Philip Aker wrote:
>>>On Monday, June 3, 2002, at 08:34 PM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
>
>>I guess I am more of a Schenkerian than is fashionable these days
>>(like many jazzers), but in my ears, metre trumps everything - thus
>>the difference between an ornamental V-
> From: "Chuck Israels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The three most important things in music are: rhythm, rhythm, and
> rhythm, in that order.
>
Chuck:
Surely rhythm, melody and harmony are the eternal musical trinity
- allowing, of course, that the relative importance of each element
may var
You mean to tell me there's a harmonic meter?
Wow, when they finally read mine and send me the bill, I'm gonna have to
remortgage the house to pay it. Does anybody know what the fee per
chord use is? Or is it measured in kilo-chord-hours? Is there a
reduced fee if I just use roots and third
Chuck Israels:
> The three most important things in music are: rhythm, rhythm,
> and rhythm, in that order.
Two comments:
1. Tell that to the Three Fivers wouldja. ;-)
2. What's happened to harmonic meter?
Philip Aker
http://www.aker.ca
___
Fina
On Monday, June 3, 2002, at 08:34 PM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
> David Froom:
>>> And my answer for him was to relate the Pachelbel to the
>>> standard sequential harmonic pattern generated from descending
>>> 10ths (or, if you insist, 3rds).
>> I don't disagree entirely but this is a dif
I haven't really followed the discussion, but I can deliver a nice story
about the Pachelbel piece, that may put it into a different light for some:
Pachelbel's Canon and Gigue in D was first performed at one of JS Bach's
relatives (I forget which) at which three violinists, one of them I believe
Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
> At 4:03 PM -0700 6/03/02, Philip Aker wrote:
>
>> David Froom:
>>
>>> And my answer for him was to relate the Pachelbel to the standard
>>> sequential harmonic pattern generated from descending 10ths (or, if
>>> you insist, 3rds).
>>
>>
>> I don't disagree entir
At 11:34 PM -0400 6/3/02, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
>At 4:03 PM -0700 6/03/02, Philip Aker wrote:
>>David Froom:
>>
>>>And my answer for him was to relate the Pachelbel to the standard
>>>sequential harmonic pattern generated from descending 10ths (or,
>>>if you insist, 3rds).
>>
>>I don't dis
At 4:03 PM -0700 6/03/02, Philip Aker wrote:
>David Froom:
>
>>And my answer for him was to relate the Pachelbel to the standard
>>sequential harmonic pattern generated from descending 10ths (or, if
>>you insist, 3rds).
>
>I don't disagree entirely but this is a different beastie than the
>root
David Froom:
> The point, though, was to explain the chord progression in
> Pachelbel -- the questioner was wondering why it went down a
> fourth and then up a step.
Not quite. He asked about the three most common types of root
movement and subsequently asked why the Pachelbel Canon had root
David Froom wrote:
>
> My goodness -- a lot of discussion about a rather banal piece, especially
> one that makes so many of us switch radio stations when it comes on!
>
Indeed. My quartet has had to play it for so many weddings that our cellist now
demands "combat
pay." (Getting to play tha
I hesitated to respond to David Fenton's comments about my comments, since I
hate getting into slugfests with him. But not to answer seems to imply that
I agree with his criticisms.
David, if you will reread my post, you'll see I said that my chord labeling
included "non-functional" chords, and
19 matches
Mail list logo
