May 11, 200718 yr well, since we have all gotten the information we were looking for (or not, I guess, depending on each person's interest), I suggest we simply let this thread die a quick and painless death. Arguing with someone who states that a composer's harmony was "very strict" (about as meaningless a statement as I've read in a long time), and that he "used very little dissonance" despite proof to the contrary, is like hitting one's head repeatedly against a brick wall. Saul will never acknowledge that he does not know what he's talking about. No matter how many scores we pull out, or how many specific references to measure numbers, etc... he will never accept that he is, in this case, quite wrong and arguing from a losing position. I intend on leaving him to his delusional belief about consonance and dissonance. I can only hope that we have amply demonstrated our point and that no one else here will buy into his baseless statements. Therefore, Requiescant in pacem, thread on musical boredom.
May 11, 200718 yr Therefore, Requiescant in pacem, thread on musical boredom. The correct Latin is "requiescat", since you refer to one thing/person. :)
May 11, 200718 yr The correct Latin is "requiescat", since you refer to one thing/person. :) oopsy, thank-you. my latin is worse than rusty.. it's completely disintegrated. however, the point was gotten across :blush:
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.