El Burdo -> RE: I have a preference for por arriba. (Jan. 14 2014 11:13:31)
|
quote:
V7 comes from the major scale only. This is just wrong. In this case it comes from both A harmonic minor and A melodic minor which are scales (and to me, harmonic environments, even though one was derived to act melodically). When harmonised in 3rds they produce different chords, but in both cases E7 is chord 5. In A harmonic minor the chord is E7b13b9 - making available the exact extensions you play in the E chord por arriba. In A melodic minor it is E7b13 with a natural 9 - NOT the chord. In the relative minor of C which you seem to be referring to it is Em. Nothing to do with anything here I can see. The key signature is completely irrelevant. In all written minor pieces the exact nature of the sound is given by the use of accidentals within the piece. I'm not talking of notation. quote:
I guess you didn't read the link to the other thread, so I will repeat myself here Thanks. I did read it. It's true that Augmented 6ths are used on the minor second - i.e. F being the minor second above E - but they are mostly used on the minor 6th of the scale - which of course in A hm is F, so that doesn't really make your assertion any more correct than mine. I think you are using Augmented 6ths to describe something I am using scale harmony to describe. How one is more what 'the old masters' thought is beyond me. They are both just descriptions. By the way, the augmented 6th (D#) sounds the same as the b7 (Eb). I assume the Eb is only played melodically and not as part of the chord as it clashes with the E at the top? So, I'm asking if the aug6 is actually played? I don't know, as that is about playing and I'm WELL back down the line there. quote:
Well, it does Fine. It doesn't. Where are we now? To me chord harmony and how it relates to scales is interesting as a means of knowing what is happening in order to replicate in different keys or to improvise in a meaningful way. It's a tool that describes harmony. It doesn't point to the meaning of music, the passion or the art. It's only a tool, and sometimes has a hard time describing what is happening at all, for example in a lot of rock music. I think all this SUPER resolved, very very wrong stuff is just a hysterical attempt to differentiate your passion from everything else by giving it different parameters. I don't see that describing something changes it in any way. It's the music that is the thing, and our ability as musicians to bring it to life. Obviously :-). You know the quotation 'The map is not the territory'? So relevant to music and its notation. quote:
flamenco has it's OWN LANGUAGE As I said, so does the blues, jazz, brass band music and no doubt everything else. They generally describe form and sections. Do the aficionados of each of those styles insist on different analyses? Maybe, but they'd be wrong too. I am trying to learn the terminology of flamenco, let alone the techniques. I do buy into the idiom and the argot, but respect cuts both ways. I understood the questioner to mean the general depth of sound, playable falsetas, resonance of the three E's etc as compared to, I assume the lighter, different sound of por medio. Nothing more arcane than that. Maybe I'm wrong. I thought I'd volunteer some help to Kevin in terms of the harmony going on. The confusion all through the points I have raised here, is that my descriptions of the harmonic movement is the music itself and I don't hear it properly. You don't know what I hear so shouldn't be telling me that I don't hear the home chord or the cadence into it. I have described a framework and have never said that it is unacceptable to sit on chords that are not the tonic of the relevant scale or harmonic environment. Some of the arguements here want E as the tonic. I'll agree it's the home chord. In fact, I have said it is for that reason the sound, the sound, is so compelling. Anyway, there's something very odd about writing text and making it into a conversation. It's by nature completely antisocial in that no-one could ever speak like this and get away with it. I now seem to be defending myself against non-theoretical assumptions so I'll stop with this. I've said what I wanted to say. I assure you all of my respect and I'll continue to differ until I hear an argument that holds water, better than mine. The scientific process. Right a, m, i, i, a, m, i, i **** e, a, m i , i no, e
|
|
|
|