Re: On the Grammar of Music (Martin Braun )

Subject: Re: On the Grammar of Music
From:    Martin Braun  <nombraun(at)POST.NETLINK.SE>
Date:    Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:56:37 +0200

Martin Hansen wrote: "How could you then, as described in an earlier mail by you, detect the wrong note in the Mozart piece? Doesn't this imply the existence of "rules" or a "grammar" for music?" Reply: Yes, it shows that a (good) composer uses rules, when he writes. But we were talking about the possibility of a grammar of chord progression. And in this context the answer is: No, I found the error, because the wrong note violated the highly specific system of melodic symmetry that Mozart had chosen in this particular piece. The error had nothing to do with chord progression, let alone a possible grammar of chord progression. There are plenty of rules in music. I never argued that. It certainly is very useful to describe and analyze these rules. But one should try to know what one is talking about. All suggestions on the meaning of chords and chord progression in music so far have turned out to be on the same level of reliability as the suggestions on the meaning of planets in astrology. Martin Hansen wrote: "Meaning and grammar are not really the same, are they? You can not tell very much about the words alone, unless you know the (grammatically correct?) sentence around them." Reply: Right. But you can't have grammatically correct words without meaning. And then: What is the grammatical quality of A-C-E as opposed to Ab-C-F? There are no nouns, verbs and adjectives in music. Some people see men, women, and children into a piece of music. But is it IN the music? Martin ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin Hansen <m.hansen(at)WIDEX.COM> To: <AUDITORY(at)LISTS.MCGILL.CA> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 1:55 PM Subject: Re: On the Grammar of Music

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