Re: [LAU] Some new Bach

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Dave Phillips <dlphillips@...>
Cc: <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Thursday, February 14, 2013 - 3:42 pm

--bcaec52d4d31a61a0104d5b1195f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 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--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] Some new Bach, Julien Claassen, (Tue Feb 12, 10:14 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Rustom Mody, (Thu Feb 14, 12:40 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Julien Claassen, (Thu Feb 14, 1:03 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Ralf Mardorf, (Thu Feb 14, 1:57 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Ralf Mardorf, (Thu Feb 14, 1:01 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Chris Bannister, (Sat Feb 16, 12:33 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Julien Claassen, (Sat Feb 16, 12:39 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Rustom Mody, (Sat Feb 16, 4:24 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Paul Davis, (Thu Feb 14, 12:50 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Lorenzo Sutton, (Thu Feb 14, 3:32 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Fons Adriaensen, (Thu Feb 14, 3:52 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Folderol, (Thu Feb 14, 4:45 pm)
[LAU] OT: do you like this kind of looseness?, drew Roberts, (Thu Feb 14, 6:44 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: do you like this kind of looseness?, Folderol, (Thu Feb 14, 8:35 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: do you like this kind of looseness?, drew Roberts, (Fri Feb 15, 2:07 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Rustom Mody, (Thu Feb 14, 5:47 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Tim Goetze, (Thu Feb 14, 9:40 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Julien Claassen, (Thu Feb 14, 9:43 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Fons Adriaensen, (Thu Feb 14, 6:37 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Lorenzo Sutton, (Fri Feb 15, 9:19 am)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Dave Phillips, (Thu Feb 14, 2:20 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Paul Davis, (Thu Feb 14, 2:32 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Jörn Nettingsmeier, (Thu Feb 14, 9:41 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Dave Phillips, (Thu Feb 14, 3:20 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Paul Davis, (Thu Feb 14, 3:31 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Dave Phillips, (Thu Feb 14, 3:39 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Ralf Mardorf, (Thu Feb 14, 4:20 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Paul Davis, (Thu Feb 14, 3:42 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Folderol, (Thu Feb 14, 3:12 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Ralf Mardorf, (Thu Feb 14, 4:14 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Dave Phillips, (Thu Feb 14, 3:31 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Folderol, (Thu Feb 14, 4:44 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Julien Claassen, (Thu Feb 14, 2:42 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Folderol, (Wed Feb 13, 11:41 am)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Carlos sanchiavedraz, (Wed Apr 10, 2:52 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Julien Claassen, (Wed Apr 10, 4:18 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Daniel Worth, (Wed Feb 13, 12:55 am)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Julien Claassen, (Wed Feb 13, 8:09 am)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Al Thompson, (Wed Feb 13, 4:35 pm)
Re: [LAU] Some new Bach, Ralf Mardorf, (Wed Feb 13, 6:23 pm)