Re: Chords and what they mean

[Urs Liska]

Am 18.09.2015 um 17:06 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi Urs,
>
>> Perfect example of "context”.
> Exactly!
>
>> I, as a classical musician, will get confused if presented with namings
>> that don't follow the harmonic content (given the historical style of
>> the music).
>> That would be the same for Em-6 (or however you'd spell it out) as <e g
>> bis>.
> Yes. In most of the current chorded music I’m writing (i.e., musical theatre 
> songs), the chord names are there for ease of sight-reading and/or comping by 
> the pianist (e.g., at an audition). So simple trumps function every time. And 
> all the MDs and musical theatre composers/arrangers I know concur.
>
>> The four double flats have been replaced by their enharmonically
>> exchanged pitches, so we're having only three flats left.
>> While someone might think that's easier to read I strongly oppose
>> because that totally spoils the structural context (the chord is simply
>> built through stacked thirds) and also the voice leading.
> For luxurious study, that’s my preference, too.  :)
> For sight-reading, simple trumps function every time.

Yes, but reading the chord from the later edition (i.e. the harmonically
"correct" spelling) is much simpler because it allows me to "grasp" its
function as a seventh of a minor sub dominant from how the noteheads are
laid out on the page.
The seemingly simpler chord in the original edition doesn't "speak" to
me at all, and I'm forced to go through it note by note. That is I have
to find the correct place for each finger and only then will be able to
understand what it "is".

So the question of "simpler" is a question of context (i.e. background
on the reader's part).

Urs

>
> Cheers,
> Kieren.
> ________________________________
>
> Kieren MacMillan, composer
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: address@hidden
>