Re: On the Grammar of Music ("O.T.Furnes" )

Subject: Re: On the Grammar of Music
From:    "O.T.Furnes"  <oddtf(at)>
Date:    Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:35:32 +0200

Isn't this just a quarrel about the meaning of the term "rule"?=20 Surely there are rules governing the types of chords and types of chord = progressions to be found within a certain style. The term "style" does = in fact refer to a set of "rules". The thing is that the term rule does = not here imply the "unbreakable". It rather points at a certain way of = doing things. Oxford dictionary defines "As a rule" like this: "Usually; = more often than not."=20 Then it is obvious that we may call the various cognitive schemes = related to different styles as sets of pattern rules - the chordal = progressions we find in the music of J.S. Bach are of a different kind = than those used by the grunge-band Nirvana. Run a number of songs this = through a statistics programme and you will find that there is a highly = significant difference between the two. It is very "handy" to refer to = these different chord-progression schemes as different chord-progression = "rules". Rules, grammars, expectancies - the bottom line is that it all = relates to the same. Let us not make things more difficult than they = really are. Odd Torleiv _____________________ Odd Torleiv Furnes Department of Musicology University of Oslo Norway oddtf(at)

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University