Page 1 of 2
#1
Well, I have a question regarding the harmonious qualities of counterpoint compostions.


When I've asked my guitar teacher about harmonies in classical music (he also plays piano (I don't know how well, though) so I guess that he knows how to play at least some compostions), even though I didn't specifically mean to the "classical era" so I don't know how many differences in rules it might have in comparison with baroque, for example - It seems obvious as you usually want to avoid dissonance, but I don't know if it's completely true - He said that they were much more strict about the combination of harmony and melody, basically playing over the notes of the current "degree" in the harmony and matching each other accordingly.

Many of the solos found in rock music that are usually played pretty high in the register would sound very dissonant when played in the same octave of the rhythm section because they don't really match with the harmony and kind of create "extended chords" that only sound reasonable when higher in pitch (for example, actually playing a chord with a 2 would sound much less acceptable than a chord with a 9).


Now, basically what a counter-melody should logically do is harmonize the main melody, and that could mean that it would only use the 1, 3, 5 notes (and inversions such as a note and its major sixth basically being a root and its minor third).

I've checked some Guitar Pro sheets; I didn't go through whole compositions because they're usually written over different instruments and switching between them to inspect each note would take a very long time, but a quick look over some areas did show a 1, 3, 5 combination, with the exception of one intrument using legato while the other is playing a "transition note", so basically a none-triad note could be played while another one is still heard, but the both of them playing at the same time should have a harmonious connection.

That was in a completely contrapuntal composition (and I don't know how true it is, it might be more liberal and I need to see other examples), but when I've checked a different composition (which was maybe written for a lute or something old like that because it had a structure similar to guitar fingerstyle-playing) it was written against that rule. It wasn't as contrapuntal because there wasn't a constant counter-melody with a similar rhythm playing over, but there was a slower combination of bass with the treble that created a slower melody, which used 7ths and 9ths and probably other intervals as well all over. So I don't know if it's really counted as contrapuntal as another composition, but it most definitely went further than triad-notes.

And a last issue: When you do write the lead melody and then want to write a counter-melody, when you harmonize it with 3rds and 5ths, should you make sure that the melody which is supposed to be the main, lead one contains the root notes? Because writing it differently might change the feeling of what's harmonizing what.


Sorry for the long post, but some examples of the issues I've mentioned would help.
Thanks in advance.
Last edited by user1a at Sep 11, 2010,
#2
The lead (soprano) as we're taught in music theory class can be any member of the chord. We use "smooth voice leading," which means we choose the member of the chord with the least distance in pitch next. It's also possible to choose notes that are out of the chord as a transition to the next note. These are called non-chord tones, and are named differently based on how they're used. Wiki has a good page explaining their use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonchord_tone
#3
Um... I think that it's something different than what I've asked. What you were talking about seems to be transitioning from one chord to the next.


I've started to read that species-counterpoint method which seems to pretty much explain what I was asking about.
#4
what your talking about is only scratching the surface of classical composition. TO real composers in that idiom, there are no rules. To theory students who need to pass a test (myself included) theres tons of rules, begining with species counterpoint and bach chorale style voiceleading.
If you listen to many composers (from the romantic period on really) you'll see that dissonance is used quite freely to great effect. the point of composition is art, not conforming to rules written hundreads of years after the compositions there based on as a way to teach idiomatic composition to a legion of music students, many of which have no interested in the idiom (i know I never wanted to write baroque music).
#5
Well, as I said these rules are quite restrictive and I didn't mean that this is a boundary for composing, and I also didn't say that this is where classical music seems to end.

That's why I was asking about these, because knowing these as fundamentals obviously helps in reaching that certain type of composing, and in knowing how and where to break it when you want to stretch those rules.


And I don't know if I know compositions from the "Romantic Period", but both strong dissonance is not really that welcome, even if you want to test boundaries, and Baroque music is apparently especially known for its contrapuntal qualities, so saying that pretty much contradicts the whole essence of my post.
#6
Quote by user1a
Um... I think that it's something different than what I've asked. What you were talking about seems to be transitioning from one chord to the next.


When you do write the lead melody and then want to write a counter-melody, when you harmonize it with 3rds and 5ths, should you make sure that the melody which is supposed to be the main, lead one contains the root notes? Because writing it differently might change the feeling of what's harmonizing what.


The lead (soprano) as we're taught in music theory class can be any member of the chord. We use "smooth voice leading," which means we choose the member of the chord with the least distance in pitch next. It's also possible to choose notes that are out of the chord as a transition to the next note. These are called non-chord tones, and are named differently based on how they're used. Wiki has a good page explaining their use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonchord_tone


That fits perfectly, I don't know why you're confused.

You're asking how the lead melody should be composed and harmonized according to rules in music theory, correct? I simply said that the melody shouldn't jump large intervals and that the lead doesn't need to be the root of the chord every time.

No offense but it seemed to me that this post explained things in a bit of a roundabout way, so I may have misinterpreted your question(s?).
Last edited by WizMystery at Sep 11, 2010,
#7
I've basically asked about the rules of composing the counterpoint regarding the intervals placement and the questionable use of dissonant notes.

Your post seemed to regard specifically chords as they are. And when you wrote about the "voice leading" being "any member of the chord" (it sounds like it could in some intervals put the supposed lead into question, but I guess that only harmonizing it with 3rds and 5ths when avoiding dissonant intervals won't be too interesting) - specifically the one with least distance in pitch to the next, it seemed like writing in between chord progressions. When you write a counter melody it's probably not like you're adding notes between chord progressions, but I guess that you just meant that you can use what ever note which is near the next one (who should be harmonic) to step an interval in between, which is basically what I've mentioned already in the post.

Even though that from what I've read in that "Species Counterpoint" thing it's only allowed when the next note is a third apart so that the so called passing tone just fills the one step in between them.


But that still doesn't regard what I've asked about actually using dissonant intervals play together. I think that the example I've mentioned was a Bach - which was of the Baroque Period. Again, I don't know if it was completely regarded as contrapuntal but it did contain none chord notes being played at the same time.
Last edited by user1a at Sep 11, 2010,
#8
Quote by user1a
I've basically asked about the rules of composing the counterpoint regarding the intervals placement and the questionable use of dissonant notes.

Your post seemed to regard specifically chords as they are. And when you wrote about the "voice leading" being "any member of the chord" (it sounds like it could in some intervals put the supposed lead into question, but I guess that only harmonizing it with 3rds and 5ths when avoiding dissonant intervals won't be too interesting) - specifically the one with least distance in pitch to the next, it seemed like writing in between chord progressions. When you write a counter melody its probably not like you're adding notes between chord progressions, but I guess that you just meant the you can use what ever note whose near the next one (who should be harmonic) to step an interval in between, which is basically what I've mentioned already in the post.

But that still doesn't regard what I've asked about actually using dissonant intervals play together. I think that the example I've mentioned was a Bach - which was of the Baroque Period. Again, I don't know if it was completely regarded as contrapuntal but it didn't contain none chord notes played at the same time.


Okay I understand what you meant now after re-reading your original post, I thought your were talking strictly about contrapuntal theory. Baroque does tend to avoid dissonance as much as it can. I remember doing this for about a month, so I can't say I'm much of an expert on Baroque style theory, but the "correctness" of the music had everything to do with avoiding dissonant intervals and stagnation. It was all consonance and not a single hint of dissonance. If you wish to follow every rule, hypothetically, the only harmony permitted would be 3rds and 5ths, and that example you gave us was less of a conformity to these rules. Sure it tends to be boring, but that's why not too many people seemed to use that method after it was phased out.
#9
Thanks for the reply, even though I can't find that composition I was talking about to give it as an example.
I've noticed that your reply contains a quote of my post before I've edited it. I say that IT DID contain none-chord notes.


But I do have a question regarding perfect fourths - If it's simply the inversion of a perfect fifth, and it sounds less dissonant than the inversions of the third (major and minor sixths), why is it apparently unallowed to be used harmonically?
Last edited by user1a at Sep 11, 2010,
#10
Quote by user1a
Thanks for the reply, even though I can't find that composition I was talking about to give it as an example.
I've noticed that your reply contains a quote of my post before I've edited it. I say that IT DID contain none-chord notes.


But I do have a question regarding perfect fourths - If it's simply the inversion of a perfect fifth, and it sounds less dissonant than the inversions of the third (major and minor sixths), why is it apparently unallowed to be used harmonically?


Well your example may have followed the rules, I'm not really sure. Wish you did know where it was :P

Though we don't consider it dissonant today, what with its use in modern music, the P4 was considered very unpleasant to the ears 400 years ago. It technically is a dissonant interval, while the P5 is not. This is the reason 2nd inversion chords are to be used sparingly in contrapuntal theory; there is a P4 between the bass and the rest of the parts.
#11
for classical composers, there aren't rules and there's nothing allowed or not allowed. theory is a way to analyze music and to figure out what intervals/scales/timing/etc. will give different effects/feelings/etc. So while dissonance may not be common, its not a rule that you cannot use it. You can do whatever you want but it'll be easier if you know the theory behind it (not implying that you don't) so that you can make sure it ounds how you want. Or if your ears have like perfect pitch or really good relative pitch, you can write everything from scratch without knowing theory (i wouldn't recommend that though). this concept is kind of hard for me to explain so i'm gonna give really really simple examples. if you want something to sound sad, you'll use some kind of minor scale (not necessarily natural/relative minor, just whatever scale with a flat third degree you want), or if you want it happy you'll use a major scale (with a major third). there is no rule that says you have to always use the major scale, if there were rules like that you'd run out of music to create. you have the option to use either scale you want, depending on the sound you want.

you're allowed to be dissonant i that's the effect you're going for. if you want things to sound unnorthodox, uncomfortable, and out-of-place, how does dissonance look like a bad idea? listen to and learn classical pieces to learn what intervals (either melodically or harmonically) cause what effects, and then phrasing, scales, etc. i happen to be horrible at aalyzing a song or piece with theory, which is why i've posted a few threads asking how t play certain genres or sound like certain bands, and im not saying asking isnt a bad idea, its just that classical isnt the most popular genre right now and its gonna be a little bit hard to find people who've studied it enough to give you real answers to what is common in classical music and what is uncommon, so it might be the kind of thing you have to figure out yourself.

like, if you were asking about blues, something almost every guitarist has some for of experience in, you'd get tons of people explaining the blues scale, 12 bar blues, 4-5-1 progressions, and a ton more, but not as many people have studied classical, its not UNcommon to study it, just LESS common than other genres. so you won't get a whole lot of people explaining what scales, intervals, timing, or whatever are common in classical.

so my recommendation is to learn all your favorite classical pieces, BOTH the harmony and melody (oh and btw, it doesn't matter if they switch between instruments, its probably all playable on guitar, but might be easier on piano if you have any experience in it) and maybe the rhythm (idk anything abt classical rhythm, it might be simple, or it might be complex). then don't analyze each note by itself, analyze the intervals between the notes, what scales or modes are being used (if any, sometimes its completely intervals). it wont tell oyou whats "against the rules," it will tell you whats common or uncommon in classical, because there's no such thing as rules in music, only common and uncommon (unless ur a smartass who's gonna say "but 1 rule is, there needs to be sound!" because that just goes without saying). theory tells us that certain things are common in classical, other things are common in jazz, other things are common in blues, and that some things are common in sad music, other stuff is more common in happy music, and thats how we know that there's a difference between music of different moods, attitudes, genres, styles, etc., theory isn't a rule-book that says "you have to do all this to make music, and none of this to make music, and then you need to do this exactly to make this kind of music" its more fluid than that.
#12
Baroque music avoiding dissonances? Baroque music is littered with suspensions/(accented) passing notes/appogiaturas/changing notes etc etc....
#13
Quote by griffRG7321
Baroque music avoiding dissonances? Baroque music is littered with suspensions/(accented) passing notes/appogiaturas/changing notes etc etc....

perfect example of wat i was saying! you cant learn that there are "rules" to music, you have to see whats common, you've apparently learned that there's a rule against dissonance, but look at what griff's saying here
#14
Quote by TMVATDI
perfect example of wat i was saying! you cant learn that there are "rules" to music, you have to see whats common, you've apparently learned that there's a rule against dissonance, but look at what griff's saying here


He wasn't exactly asking whether or not to follow the rules, but instead what the rules were.
#15
Quote by WizMystery
He wasn't exactly asking whether or not to follow the rules, but instead what the rules were.

but learning that there are rules i the 1st place can screw up ur music, there are things that are common, but no rules. asking what rules there are in music is like asking what flavor of ice cream i would like to poor on my head, the answer is always "none"
#16
Quote by TMVATDI
but learning that there are rules i the 1st place can screw up ur music, there are things that are common, but no rules. asking what rules there are in music is like asking what flavor of ice cream i would like to poor on my head, the answer is always "none"


But you seem to be forgetting that the system he's talking about is a teaching tool. Species-Counterpoint was introduced so that students can slowly break the rules after learning them. Really nobody conforms to the rules once they've gotten off the ground.
#17
Quote by WizMystery
But you seem to be forgetting that the system he's talking about is a teaching tool. Species-Counterpoint was introduced so that students can slowly break the rules after learning them. Really nobody conforms to the rules once they've gotten off the ground.

oh idk what species-counterpoint is. ive only been learning theory for like 5 months
#18
Um... Again, I haven't spoken about rules in the sense of boundaries, I've meant it in how WizMystery said.

But you kind of missed my point. They mostly use the Major and Minor scales (which are relative to each other and basically contain the same notes at different degrees. That's why its important to start on the tonic and maybe one of its triads, so it won't imply a different mode), and I think that wether a person got or doesn't got a "perfect pitch" (didn't really check if I got that) they can distinguish dissonance. It's just that there are obviously some things that are not "welcome" in these compositions and being familiar with them helps in how to avoid or use them. They tought music theory back then as well if they already got rules, so it's not simply a thing written hundreds of years later like someone suggested and the composers tehmselves knew at least parts of these as well.

I've already mentioned sustained notes, ie "passing tones", which are known as a form of moving between degrees - Without playing dissonant intervals directly together.


And what I've meant by "switching instruments" is that the tabs are tabbed through different instruments and that it's hard to check each one over and over, not that it's not for guitar. And by that I did mean to checking the harmonic intervals between the notes.

Thanks for the replies but maybe someone with more related answers could help.
Last edited by user1a at Sep 12, 2010,
#19
i think of rules and boundries as synonymous, thats why if its not a boundry, i dont call it a rule
#20
I meant that you can break the rules when you know what they are, and do it in a clever way. Knowing them doesn't bound you.

But anyway, saying that classical composers have no rules is a bit unreasonable because if we're already at it, todays music have much less rules and is more liberal while classical music is obviously more structurally constructed. It's kind of mathematic.
#21
Quote by user1a
I meant that you can break the rules when you know what they are, and do it in a clever way. Knowing them doesn't bound you.

But anyway, saying that classical composers have no rules is a bit unreasonable because if we're already at it, todays music have much less rules and is more liberal while classical music is obviously more structurally constructed. It's kind of mathematic.

ok, by now i understand what every1 is talking abt with rules haha i dont need more explanations like "no i meant like this" im just saying that if you can break it i dont consider it a rule, im not saying you shouldnt know them, im just saying "rule" might not be the right word to use. thats ALL im saying is that i dont like that word, not anything deeper than that or abt boundries or anything, just the word seems to not work for music

edit: nevermind, this'll just start pissing people off with my luck...
Last edited by TMVATDI at Sep 12, 2010,
#22
Considering the time and musical era in which these concepts were formed, these ARE rules.

But anyway, I've looked through some other guitar pro sheets of Bach and they had very rarely an interval of a second and even a diminished fifth playing at the same time, but I don't know how reliable these tabs are, and it did sound quite dissonant, though, so whether you're trying to go by some rules or not these simply might not work well in comparison to the rest of the pretty harmonic composition.

But anyway, I think that this Species Counterpoint really might regard a bit older era and some better resources about this may be more helpful. Are there any of these? Maybe with some examples of compositions to better demonstrate that style of composing.
Last edited by user1a at Sep 12, 2010,
#23
Quote by user1a


But anyway, I've looked through some other guitar pro sheets of Bach and they had very rarely an interval of a second and even a diminished fifth playing at the same time


Rarely? 9-8 suspensions and dominant 7ths were not rare in the baroque period.
#24
I wasn't talking about suspensions. These are obvious and part of creating and resolving tension (and I've already mentioned them several times). I was talking about dissonant intervals, even a tritone, being played at the same time, on the accentuated beat.
Last edited by user1a at Sep 12, 2010,
#25
Quote by user1a
But anyway, I think that this Species Counterpoint really might regard a bit older era and some better resources about this may be more helpful. Are there any of these? Maybe with some examples of compositions to better demonstrate that style of composing.


This is not really a formal example but searching it on youtube gave me this result:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMKPBCN5LQ0

The same user has several other examples of first, second, third, fourth, and fifth species. The descriptions in the videos are helpful as they explain how the student developed using the system, so that should give you a good idea of the rules.
#26
Quote by user1a
I wasn't talking about suspensions. These are obvious and part of creating and resolving tension (and I've already mentioned them several times). I was talking about dissonant intervals, even a tritone, being played at the same time, on the accentuated beat.


Suspensions, passing notes, auxiliary all contain a dissonance that is resolved.
#27
Quote by griffRG7321
Suspensions, passing notes, auxiliary all contain a dissonance that is resolved.


You're right about this but not all Baroque music used the method we're talking about.
#28
Quote by griffRG7321
Suspensions, passing notes, auxiliary all contain a dissonance that is resolved.


Do you even read before you reply or that you just automatically write the thing over and over again?

The so called tension that's resolved in what I've already written is the dissonance, but, again, it's a PASSING TONE and that's playing in a suspended manner, with legato, not directly at the same time with the other notes.
#29
Quote by user1a
Do you even read before you reply or that you just automatically write the thing over and over again?

The so called tension that's resolved in what I've already written is the dissonance, but, again, it's a PASSING TONE and that's playing in a suspended manner, with legato, not directly at the same time with the other notes.


Please provide an example in standard notation, your posts are hard to understand.

Harmonic/melodic decoration doesn't have to occur at exactly the same time as the other notes, regular passing notes aren't played at exactly the same time as the rest of the chord (lets say the chord is on beat 1 and the passing note is on the second quaver beat) but it's still a dissonance. You can also have accented passing notes that do occur on the beat.
#30
What's so hard to undestand? I've written it pretty clearly.

The passing tone is passing, it's not played directly with the rest of the chord members. It probably may be written over an accentuated beat, but it's still a passing tone. You just said that it's not played at the same time, and that's exactly what distinguishes it from a dissonant interval played at the same time. It creates suspension while passing from one chord (or harmonic interval) to the other, and it's not as harsh as them all being played together. I think that it's basically written in the counter species theory as well, and once again what you were doing was just repeating over stuff without knowing you're trying to explain.
#31
Are you trying to say a passing note isn't dissonant? What do you actually want to know? whether a passing note is dissonant or not?
#32
... Do You Read?

I Said That Even Though It's Dissonant It's Not Played Together, Using Legato Is Different.
#33
Quote by user1a
... Do You Read?

I Said That Even Though It's Dissonant It's Not Played Together, Using Legato Is Different.


Legato has nothing to do with it, dissonance is dissonance, and i still don't understand what your asking.
#34
Playing it with legato has EVERYTHING to do with it.

That's why it's even written in that Species Counterpoint rules. It seems like you're having a hard time understanding it so I'll say it like that: The notes are not being initiated on the same time. The other note is still sustained but its amplitude is not as strong. "Ornamenting" the counterpoint with a major second as a passing tone won't pronounce its dissonancy as strongly as a one and a major second both being played at the same time.
#35
Quote by user1a
Playing it with legato has EVERYTHING to do with it.

That's why it's even written in that Species Counterpoint rules. It seems like you're having a hard time understanding it so I'll say it like that: The notes are not being initiated on the same time. The other note is still sustained but its amplitude is not as strong. "Ornamenting" the counterpoint with a major second as a passing tone won't pronounce its dissonancy as strongly as a one and a major second both being played at the same time.


When it's played at the same time that's called an accented passing tone/appogiatura depending on the context.

You could just end this by posting the notation.
#36
The fact that it may be played at an accented beat doesn't mean at all that it's actually played the same time as the rest of the chord tones.

Even take a look at the example given in the Wikipedia paragraph about that appoggiatura you've mentioned and see.


And what notation? I'm not even sure what the hell do you want to see and how is that related to my post. I'm just explaining you that it is, as a passing tone, not supposed to be played together and that by that it's different, especially rule-wise, from a dissonant interval played together. And that's supposed to be obvious. You keep replying confusedly about that like this is what that needs approval.
#37
Quote by user1a



I've checked some Guitar Pro sheets; I didn't go through whole compositions because they're usually written over different instruments and switching between them to inspect each note would take a very long time, but a quick look over some areas did show a 1, 3, 5 combination, with the exception of one intrument using legato while the other is playing a "transition note", so basically a none-triad note could be played while another one is still heard, but the both of them playing at the same time should have a harmonious connection.

That was in a completely contrapuntal composition (and I don't know how true it is, it might be more liberal and I need to see other examples), but when I've checked a different composition (which was maybe written for a lute or something old like that because it had a structure similar to guitar fingerstyle-playing) it was written against that rule. It wasn't as contrapuntal because there wasn't a constant counter-melody with a similar rhythm playing over, but there was a slower combination of bass with the treble that created a slower melody, which used 7ths and 9ths and probably other intervals as well all over. So I don't know if it's really counted as contrapuntal as another composition, but it most definitely went further than triad-notes.

And a last issue: When you do write the lead melody and then want to write a counter-melody, when you harmonize it with 3rds and 5ths, should you make sure that the melody which is supposed to be the main, lead one contains the root notes? Because writing it differently might change the feeling of what's harmonizing what.




I don't understand what you were trying to argue so i'll address this.

I don't think you understand the term counter melody. To write a counter melody you don't just harmonise the first line, you imply chords through the use of contrasting (counter) melodies, independent of each other in pitch and rhythm.
#38
Quote by griffRG7321
I don't understand what you were trying to argue so i'll address this.

I don't think you understand the term counter melody. To write a counter melody you don't just harmonise the first line, you imply chords through the use of contrasting (counter) melodies, independent of each other in pitch and rhythm.



I think that you both don't understand the term, and the essense of harmony/chords.


"Implying chords", as you call it, would mean harmonizing. Chords are notes harmonious to each other being played together.


Intervals other than those the chord (triad) is made of (2/7), and the diminished fifth, are basically highly unharmonious in those terms and won't sound good in that term, and won't "imlpy" an actual chord. They would sound dissonant, and make "tension". Using that tension in a short, "passing" manner in order to resolve it and make it sound interesting is different than blatantly playing unmatching notes all over together. You may do that if you want but it's not unlikely that it won't sound very good, and it would most likely not sound like a "classical counterpoint".
#39
Quote by user1a
I think that you both don't understand the term, and the essense of harmony/chords.


"In music, counterpoint is the relationship between two or more voices that are independent in contour and rhythm and are harmonically interdependent. It has been most commonly identified in classical music, developing strongly during the Renaissance and in much of the common practice period, especially in Baroque music. The term originates from the Latin punctus contra punctum meaning "point against point"


Quote by user1a
"Implying chords", as you call it, would mean harmonizing. Chords are notes harmonious to each other being played together.


Chord tones do not need to be played at the same time to function.


Quote by user1a
Intervals other than those the chord (triad) is made of (2/7), and the diminished fifth, are basically highly unharmonious in those terms and won't sound good in that term, and won't "imlpy" an actual chord. They would sound dissonant, and make "tension".


All 2nds ,7ths and any diminished/augmented interval is a dissonance. Through identifying these dissonances from chord tones the implied chord is clear.

Quote by user1a
Using that tension in a short, "passing" manner in order to resolve it and make it sound interesting is different than blatantly playing unmatching notes all over together. You may do that if you want but it's not unlikely that it won't sound very good, and it would most likely not sound like a "classical counterpoint".


I don't recall disagreeing with any of this.
#40
"...and are harmonically interdependent". YOU JUST SAID IT YOURSELF. They have to have an harmonic relationship. The simplest way of describing a counterpoint is as indepedent melodies that HARMONIZE each other. They have to in order to sound good. And chords ARE harmony.


And if you play a chord you play its notes together. You may "arpegge" it and play a broken chord, but harmonically speaking, when harmony is described as "vertical" it won't apply as much. And that's another reason for not actually playing dissonance TOGETHER.


And you do realize that a 2nd is actually just the inversion of the 7th and that a diminished fifth's (tritone) inversion is a diminished fifth, right? These unharmonious intervals being played together imply nothing. And any augmented/diminished interval that doesn't make up those intervals would be harmonious. It might not match other chord tones when it's an altered interval and out-of-scale, but that's something different. And that whole section of my post explained that it's dissonant pretty clearly. You repeating something imply that you don't read.


And that whole "arguement", in case that you can't remember, was about you keeping to compare between suspended notes played in legato to dissonant intervals actually being played together, which is different and much less pleasant to the ear. So all you did was basically disagreeing with that.
Last edited by user1a at Sep 15, 2010,
Page 1 of 2