=-> Quoting Gary Smith to Martin Ridgley re: no, not exactly:
 GS> No, actually, I'm somewhat of a fan of dissonant music.
 GS> Coltrane, Dolphy, later Ornette Coleman, especially Monk, McLaughlin,
 GS> some King Crimson,...very effective in the hands of masters who know
 GS> how to resolve dissonant notes.
   Okay.  Now don't you think that if you can resolve a dissonant note,
 and make it musically palatable - it works and becomes acceptable
 regardless of theoretical `rules'?
 GS> But I stick to my statement.
   Hmmmm.... I guess I sort of suspected you would.  ;-\
 GS> Now, you can go on and write a song with F# to Am, and you can make
 GS> it work by tying it together with a good melody, but the theory
 GS> scholars who hear it are still gonna shake their heads when they hear
 GS> that progression.
   Really?  I don't think so.  Not any more.  It's certainly not *basic*
 theory, and it probably would have been frowned upon some years ago.
 However, I think most musical scholars and theorists nowadays are willing
 to accept all but the most unlikely and dissonant progressions so long as
 they can be tied together with a decent melody (and/or harmonized with a
 minimum of minor seconds)!   ;-)
 GS> In my experience, F# to G#m works, F# to Bbm work, F# to B or Bmaj7
 GS> works, F# to E works, F# to C#m works...but!!!
   Fair enough, but I still don't see how you can say that F# to Am
 doesn't work, when you admittedly listen to, and enjoy music with far
 more complex and unusal progressions than that.  Or are you simply
 playing the pedantic, traditionally-minded theorist?
 GS> Still, if the songs please YOU, the writer, then fine.
   It's more than that.  There are songs with those types of progressions
 which have pleased mass audiences and sold very well indeed.
    Cheers,
             Martin
            ~~~~~~~~
--- Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]
---------------