<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Dear List,<div><br></div><div>While many of you are certainly fed up with unhappy thread, I'll make a couple more of comments:</div><div><br></div><div>Hali Fieldman wrote: <br><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">For what it's worth, here's a different reading (mine, in this case) of</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Proctor's remark:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">"To speak of chord inversions rather than of counterpoint is to once again</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">privilege the vertical above the horizontal aspects of music of the time.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">This privileging is problematic from many standpoints, and it seems we've</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">been having conversation about this for a long time."</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If this reading is really what Proctor meant, it is almost exactly opposite to my impression. Nowhere in his posts in this thread can I find any reference to the significance of counterpoint or horizontal direction. What he stated was: "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; ">what 'inversion' a chord is in is usually insignificant compared to its nature (triad, added sixth, seventh)." If this does not mean "identifying the chord root and type ('nature') is the significant thing," I believe I can be excused for taking it to mean that. And, of course, that attitude is liable to lead to the undermining of horizontal aspects, as the characteristic linear functions of two chords with the same root and "nature," such as I and I6, can be completely different.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; "><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; ">Charles Smith wrote:</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; "><br></span></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; ">Gregory is, as most of know (or should know) is one of the deepest thinkers about music out there. Someone whose every utterance is worth careful scrutiny, no matter how loony it might sound on the surface, if only because of all the brilliant things he has already said, in so many contexts on so many different subjects.</span></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>OK, suppose Charles is right. But this is an e-mail list with worldwide following, and I do not think it is fair to expect that we all should know who are the impeccably brilliant thinkers around the world. I do not think that even the deepest thinkers among us can afford to assume the attitude that "everyone should know that I'm such a deep thinker that even my most confusing statements ought to be revered, and I will not condescend to clarify them to those who do not."</div><div><br></div><div>Olli Väisälä</div><div>Sibelius Academy</div><div>University of the Arts, Helsinki</div><div><a href="mailto:ovaisala@siba.fi">ovaisala@siba.fi</a></div></div></div></body></html>