--bcaec52d4d31a61a0104d5b1195f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Dave Phillips wrote:
> On 02/14/2013 10:31 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
i definitely meant the vertical sonority. it seems to me that two (or more)
melodic lines that have no harmonic (vertical sonority-sense) relationship
to each other do not form what people would call "counterpoint". and that
is independent of whatever definition of "harmony" you might prefer. this
is why i tend to think of it as the collision of the two disciplines, or
more poetically, the entanglement.
--bcaec52d4d31a61a0104d5b1195f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Dave P=
hillips <dlphillips@woh.rr.com> wrote:
=20
=20
=20
On 02/14/2013 10:31 AM, Paul Davis
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Dave
Phillips <dlphillips@woh.rr.com>
wrote:
Picturesque, but not
historically accurate, I'm sure you know. More like, where
melody and melody collided. :)
if line 1 and line 2 do not intersect in a harmonious way, is
it still counterpoint? would anyone call it that?
Since "harmonious" is a loaded term - are we referring to a v=
ertical
sonorityi definitely meant the vertical son=
ority. it seems to me that two (or more) melodic lines that have no harmoni=
c (vertical sonority-sense) relationship to each other do not form what peo=
ple would call "counterpoint". and that is independent of whateve=
r definition of "harmony" you might prefer. this is why i tend to=
think of it as the collision of the two disciplines, or more poetically, t=
he entanglement.
--bcaec52d4d31a61a0104d5b1195f--
LINUX® is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the USA and other countries.
Linuxaudio.org logo copyright Thorsten Wilms © 2006.
Hosting provided by the Virginia Tech Department of Music and DISIS.