Re: Chords (was Adrenalinn)

["Pedro Felix" <PedroFelix@worldnet.att.net>]

snips~
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Zvonar <zvonar@zvonar.com>
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
<Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 1:11 PM
Subject: RE: Chords (was Adrenalinn)


>RZ wrote:
>
>>Also, there are times in polyphonic music when it might be more
>>useful to refer to a set of simutaneous notes as a "simultaneity"
>>rather than a "chord."
>
>At 10:09 PM -0500 4/8/02, JIMFOWLER@prodigy.net wrote:
>
>>i agree, but the end result is a chord, wouldn't you say.  so
>>effectively, there's no difference, yes?  i guess it depends on how
>>you look at a given
>>composition.  i would think that a composer would focus on the group
>>result (i.e. chords).
>
>At 1:20 PM -0400 4/9/02, Liebig, Steuart A. wrote:
>>** i think that what richard is getting at here is the idea of
>>polyphinc music in something like renaissance vocal music (as well
>>as many others) where the *lines* and counterpoint are more
>>important than harmony . . . mostly because (and i could be wrong
>>here) these types of folks aren't/weren't necessarily thinking about
>>harmony  - - functional or otherwise.
>
>Yes.  It's the difference between polyphonic and homophonic music.
>
>I'm not saying that in analyzing polyphonic music that you have to
>deny that a harmonic simultaneity is a "chord." I'm saying that it
>can be misleading to think chordally when the music is primarily
>melodic. Another thing to consider is that in some musical situations
>a "chord" may function more as a "fused ensemble timbre." In this
>case the sound is more than a group of simultaneously sounding
>pitches; the aggregate effect is of a single sound. You have to think
>more in terms of the composite spectrum of all the instruments
>sounding and fusing together. The "notes" of the underlying chord are
>only part of the picture.


ah ha. agreed and then some. i was talking to the mrs. the other night and
ask how some program might go about transcribing my compositions. we
laughed. you see, i really think westerners can't help but hear the sound
and then quickly try to identify what is causing friction. whereas, some
others hear music as a full on sound wave, not necessairilly fit for
transcribing consumpion, eh?

>
>This is probably a bit beyond the original discussion, which was more
>about the preferred terminology for multiple notes or musical tones,
>but it leads to some more subtle and advanced areas that might be
>useful to some of us. Notions of polyphony versus homophony versus
>versus timbral fusion are quite useful in analyzing loop music.
>______________________________________________________________
>Richard Zvonar, PhD

yup.

bw, Pedro Felix - NYC 2002