-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
Yes, but reading a PhD thesis is good because they have to provide a survey of the literature... which is actually as you say really useful.
-
10-19-2020 05:01 PM
-
So, here's the most interesting (to me) question raised by this thesis.
Mozart obviously didn't use CST when writing his works (he didn't use functional harmony or Schenkerian analysis either, but let's set that aside.)
- So - the question is, what would one hope to gain from such an analysis?
- Is there a value to analysis beyond simply replicating the process and artist used to come up with their works?
- Is there on the other hand a value to trying to recreate their process (given the failure rate of Necromancy)?
He says:
The analytical and interpretive choices I make are attempts to figure out what classical musicians tend to imagine and attempts to figure out which imaginations tend to be more rewarding to those musicians.
Hmmm.
But here's an interesting thing... we think of
C F# A D
today as a third inversion D7 (this interpretation began with Rameau.)
Jazzers might think of it as a Lydian chord
In figured bass its written 6 #4 2 - so maybe he's onto something.
Anyway I'll read some of the rest of it and see what I think.
EDIT: I think I have lost the will to press on with this one. I just don't care enough. Sorry.Last edited by christianm77; 10-19-2020 at 05:38 PM.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
The PhD should help him secure/keep teaching gigs, plus he can now insist that his students refer to him as "doctor".
-
Robert Levin is a bad motherfcuker
-
-
Originally Posted by GTRMan
-
Originally Posted by Litterick
So it's all good.
Barry Harris / Oliver Nelson - Dom7/Diminished,...
Yesterday, 03:11 PM in Improvisation