The Music Theory Of Godfrey Winham

Rapidgator | Katfile | Clicknupload | Nitroflare

A few 183 pages that serve as an incentive for new writers to emerge, as 'Leslie David Blasius' did, writing about another man who thought about music theory". 'Blasius' prepares us for the study of the British 'Godfrey Winham's' works and his music philosophy, The Britishes are late in the history of music, I think that's why such fascinating music came after the 'Beatles', and drinking directly from the Afro-American source, but after all, they are great teachers and writers about music.

About 'Godfrey Winham':
He, as well as the well-founded criticisms of 'Heinrich Schenker's' musical analyses, which seem in his opinios to have more of a critical nature about musical works than actual analyses.
'Schenker' is known for having invented a "pseudo theory of musical analysis", well known in the academic world as 'Schenkerian analysis', which sometimes seems prejudiced to me.
Firstly, there is no possibility of inventing a theory about musical analysis, but rather mere schemes for musical analysis, ready-made formulas, even quite interesting, today we can program the computer so that it does it on its own in 1 minut.

There is a famous discussion between Schenker and Schoenberg, when Schenker publishes that a certain note that lasted long 16 bars in a Brahms piano piece meant nothing, as musicians and especially pianists questioned that exaggerated dissonance that lasted so long.
Then Schoenberg appears in a newspaper column in Usa, Los Angeles and wrote something close to that:
"How is this long 16 measure note not important? Of course it is, if you are doing a musical analysis, and suddently appears a note that stays in your ear for 16 bars, you should at least not sleep until he finds the reason for it, if it were another composer like Satie and his experimentalisms and musical innovations, maybe it wouldn't matter so much, but Brahms? Who wouldn't put that note in for 16 bars. When Schoenberg responds that it was just a simple 'APPOGGIATURA'.

Schenker remained silent in the face of Schoenberg's notorious knowledge of music. Some people criticize Schoenberg for the fact that he was very critical of Schenker after his death, publishing articles in Los Angeles newspapers against him.

The fact is that some things didn't work out in music, they didn't become fashionable, 'Schenker' and 'Hugo Riemann' are among them, 'Riemann' tried to reformulate the whole 'harmony of Music', writing the poor bad book "Functional Harmony", which it doesn't really work, but it brings good ideas, which unfortunately there are a lot of idiots and imbeciles in the world that uses it, but Riemann himself recognized that it didn't work or would be useful for musicians, and he was heavily criticized by his academic colleagues in Germany, it's a It's a shame that there are still people who believe in this book, a pure waste of time.
It is worth learning something from the musical vision of the music elements of 'Godfrey Winham'.
'Arnold Schoenberg' remains the musician, the holder of the most intelligent musical analyzes of all time.

I personally will end my life writing a book to prove that music theory never existed, in the past the word theory enchanted any reader, but today, for any theory to exist, one must have good criteria to support it, and It must necessarily be about something that is sometimes unattainable, distant, involving physics, mathematics and chemistry, sometimes all together, but definitely not music, which, like a few simple dots on a piece of paper, we can understand everything and a little more.

For me it was a huge disappointment when I understood all the processes of music, thanks to great 73 musical teachers i had in my entire life, and analysts as intelligent as Schoenberg, Salzer, Hindemith, Edward Aldwell, Carl Schachter and even Schenker.


One day in my life, came to me a guitarrist with a Miles Davis sheet music, he was fascinated by it, thought that musical composition, harmony, rhythm and dissonant jazz sounds were the best in life, suggesting that God had inspired 'Miles', he wanted to know what was so fascinating about that cool jazz piece...

...Then, I took the few bars sheet music without a piano and explained that the descending diatonically bass, mixing the passing notes with chromaticism, had been successful since the Baroque period, and that the notes that he thought were divine inspiration, were mere appoggiaturas, (just like Schoenberg faced Schenker when explaining Brahms), in addition to a simple "neighboring notes" that served only to give movement to the melody to avoid stagnation.
He was so disappointed to know that everything had been thought out and was so simple to compose that it lost its appeal, or he was jealous of not having the skills to analyze such simple sheet music.

I think sometimes it's better to let the musician believe in things from another world, something mythologized and unattainable, otherwise they'll be disappointed with everything.

But, believe me, great producers, who have studied music a lot, know what will sell or not, and their bank accounts are full.

Choose a path:
Play music to just feel and have fun with friends and not make money from it.
or
Know a lot and take advantage of this privileged knowledge to make money, as 'Quiny Jones' did.