Secrets of Harmony (Introduction)
Albert Silverman
Introduction
by Albert Silverman
04/16/96
----------------------
Everyone who studies music in one of our academic institutions or music
conservatories gets a dose of what is commonly referred to as "theory."
Therefore, the first order of business is to understand both the generally
accepted meaning of "theory" and the special (but unexpected)
interpretation which Musical Academia attaches to this word.
Let us start with Webster's dictionary, which defines "theory" as:
"A more or less plausible or scientifically acceptable general
principle offered to explain phenomena."
In accordance with this definition,
THEORY IS SYNONYMOUS WITH *UNDERSTANDING*
For example, in the field of science, the phenomena which are "explained"
by different theories are such things as (in physics) the motion of bodies,
the nature of vibrations, the nature of chemical reactions, etc., etc. That
is, the "explanation" provided by the theory aids one in understanding the
particular phenomena.
For its own self-serving reasons, however, Musical Academia claims that the
phenomena that are being explained (in accordance with Webster's
definition) by musical "theory" are _musical Art and History_ (which will
henceforth be referred to as "Ancient Art"). The implications of this
interpretation are profound and far-reaching.
Most of those who have had any significant contact with music know that the
major body of what is commonly referred to as musical "theory" is concerned
with "chords." What is not generally understood, however, is the dismal
failure of Ancient Art to come to grips with chords.
Considering this apparent "theoretical" preoccupation with chords, one has
every right to expect that a major purpose for teaching "theory" is to
provide the student with an *understanding* of
CHORD RELATIONSHIPS
Unfortunately, however, this is not the case. In a cruel joke perpetrated
at the expense of his comprehension, what the student of musical theory
generally receives instead is an _explanation of Ancient Art_. The problem
with this clever substitution is that the unwary student cannot distinguish
between Ancient Art and the principles of chord relationships. And Musical
Academia is hardly chomping at the bit to point out this distinction.
Were it *REASONABLY* to explain the principles of chord relationships,
there would be no practical objection to Ancient Art's being referred to as
"theory," since it would then at least conform with compositional practice.
But this is far from the case. Instead, Ancient Art is a horribly complex,
virtually incomprehensible maze of irrationality, inconsistency, and
irrelevance, which does nothing at all to promote an understanding chord
relationships.
Rather than to set forth the principles of chord relationships, the
purpose of Ancient Art is to explain how music was written during the
common-practice period.
What's wrong with this? Nothing at all, assuming that one wishes to learn
the compositional STYLE of this period (ranging roughly from 1650 to 1900).
However, if one's purpose (and this is very different indeed) is to learn
the principles of chord relationships, then studying Ancient Art in the
hope of obtaining an UNDERSTANDING of these important relationships is
futile.
Although several of these principles are lurking around somewhere in a
typical course in musical "theory," they are buried deep under a mass of
_irrelevant stylistic detail_, which precludes their recognition.
WHO needs to understand chord relationships?
In the ultimate analysis, what it all boils down to in the musical wash is
whether or not Musical Academia should serve those who have a NEED to
understand the principles of chord relationships. In this regard, anyone
who
(1) composes "serious" music based upon the triad,
(2) arranges or transcribes music in the popular style,
(3) improvises in the popular style, or
(4) teaches music in the popular style
has a need to understand these principles. Even composers who are not
composing triadic music still need this knowledge, which is the backbone of
musical "literacy."
On the other hand, there is very little evidence that the "classical" music
PERFORMER need know much of anything about chord relationships. All that
he/she need do is read the notes which are set in front of him/her; the
principles employed to compose the music are of no practical importance. In
other words, the instrumental performer who is not improvising can, without
any knowledge of chord relationships, safely navigate his/her way through
the printed score.
Ancient Art versus Chord Relationships
Given that Ancient Art (1) MUST be preserved, and (2) does not reasonably
explain the principles of chord relationships, how can these principles be
successfully taught, assuming that the intent is to teach them to everyone
who needs them? Following an innate law of the universe, that which is not
needed is guaranteed to fall through the cracks.
Not unexpectedly, the large majority of music students are grist for
Musical Academia's mill of self-serving interests. What are these? Above
all else, the overriding concern of Musical Academia is to preserve Ancient
Art until the end of time, whatever the cost. In particular, the "purity"
of Art Music _must not be diluted by catering to popular interests_. Thus
it is quite understandable that, when push comes to shove, Musical Academia
is going to follow its self-appointed charter and teach Ancient Art, rather
than teaching an understanding of chord relationships.
In principle, it is a simple matter to keep Ancient Art and chord
relationships firmly separated. Imagine, if you will, this classroom
scenario:
In this corner, folks, we have that jester, "Ancient Bunko." While he
is an aesthetic fellow who is artistically useful and is not
interested in revising musical history, he is nevertheless a ludicrous
and enigmatic clown, who will entertain us with his ridiculous
patch and-piece efforts to conform with compositional practice.
Take a bow, AB.
Over here in this other corner, folks, we have Chord Relationships.
While he has excellent _aural correlation_, is logical and well-
organized, and conforms with triadic compositional practice in ANY
time period, he cannot abide that insufferable prankster, Ancient
Bunko. Lighten up, CR.
Be very sure that you keep your fighters straight, or YOU will wind up
on the floor!
What is the problem with this dual approach to teaching harmony? Contrary
to the old saying, honesty is NOT the best policy. In point of fact, it is
an unpardonable sin in Musical Academia, which poses three arguments
against "honesty-in-chords."
(1) It casts Ancient Art in an unfavorable light.
(2) Eliminating the mystique and incredible confusion that are part and
parcel of musical "art" poses a grave danger to the Academic Musical
Caste System. How can the musical caste be identified and the riff-raff
kept out of The Club, if the playing field is leveled by destroying the
"understanding barrier"?
(3) Any theory which provides an UNDERSTANDING of chord relationships is
(paraphrasing the words of one typical academic representative who
teaches music theory and composition) "artistically useless." In other
words, eliminate the mystique, confusion, and absurdity from music
"theory" and it is no longer "art." Yes indeed, Perfessor.
So what to do, without giving the show away? The accepted academic
"solution" to this problem is brilliant. Simply teach Ancient Art to all
music students, while at the same time claiming that it is "theory," whose
purpose is to "explain" the musical composition of the common-practice
period.
Reflecting Musical Academia's perception of "need," it is not concerned
with providing this understanding to those whose musical interests lie in
the invisible (lowbrow) popular sector. That is, it is not concerned with
music that it does not deem to be "art music." Nor is it concerned with
providing this understanding to non-compositional majors. Surely, goes the
script, the non-compositional major will be none the worse for wear if he
(or she) emerges from his course in "theory" _believing that he understands
chord relationships_, when what he has REALLY been taught is a bogus
substitute: Ancient Art.
On the other hand, most students who major in "serious-music" composition
will, if they persevere, eventually learn the principles of chord
relationships. They will, however, be weighted down by the heavy baggage of
Ancient Art, the bulk of which is irrelevant to chord relationships.
Yet it is essential that ALL pay lip service to Ancient Art and History. To
witness the result of this academic subservience to Ancient Authority,
study the books on "theory" by some very famous composers/teachers. More
likely than not, their explanations of the underlying principles of their
musical craft are truly incredible!
The "Secrets" of Harmony
Webster's dictionary defines "harmony" as "The science of the structure,
relation, and progression of chords." In view of the word "science," it
appears that Webster came up with this definition without conferring with
Musical Academia!
As previously stated, although Ancient Art centers around the study of
chords in the developmental common-practice period, the theoretical
principles of chord relationships remain buried deep under a pile of
irrelevant stylistic detail. It follows that, if understanding is the
object, these principles *MUST* be extracted from this stylistic "garbage
dump."
To this end, I have prepared a four-part treatise which is entitled "The
Secrets of Harmony." The secrets to which I refer are the result of this
extraction ("decryption") process. These are indeed secrets that are
exceptionally well kept from all who study "theory" but who do not major in
musical composition.
Departing from accepted academic notion that "theory" should explain common
practice compositional style, this is a presentation of the principles of
chord relationships in ABSTRACT form; i.e., divorced from any particular
stylistic context. Such a "scientific" type of presentation is very
powerful and takes the reader quickly to the heart of the harmonic
"structural organization," without requiring the navigation of a
hopelessly-complex, common-practice stylistic maze.
In short, the principles of triadic composition, applicable to composition
in any time period, are illuminated in a manner as never before.
========================================================================
Part 1 discusses chord construction in isolation; i.e., without reference
to the use of a chord in a specific musical context.
Part 2 gets directly to the heart of the DYNAMIC basis for chord
relationships. Presented here are the principles which underlie
_dynamically-induced progression between two chords having an interval of a
"5th" between their root-tones of construction_.
Part 3 presents a dynamic solar-system model of the harmonic structure,
containing TWELVE functional roots. This model serves to clarify the nature
of "root progression."
Part 4 (which is in three pieces for convenience of presentation)
discusses, in penetrating detail, the pertinent features of the Ancient
Harmonic Model which is taught throughout Musical Academia as "theory." It
is both frightening, for its implications in musical "education," and
entertaining, by virtue of its absurdity!
What a combination!
Eric Pruett
> WHO needs to understand chord relationships?
>
> In the ultimate analysis, what it all boils down to in the musical wash is
> whether or not Musical Academia should serve those who have a NEED to
> understand the principles of chord relationships. In this regard, anyone
> who
>
> (1) composes "serious" music based upon the triad,
> (2) arranges or transcribes music in the popular style,
> (3) improvises in the popular style, or
> (4) teaches music in the popular style
>
> has a need to understand these principles. Even composers who are not
> composing triadic music still need this knowledge, which is the backbone of
> musical "literacy."
>
> On the other hand, there is very little evidence that the "classical" music
> PERFORMER need know much of anything about chord relationships. All that
> he/she need do is read the notes which are set in front of him/her; the
> principles employed to compose the music are of no practical importance. In
> other words, the instrumental performer who is not improvising can, without
> any knowledge of chord relationships, safely navigate his/her way through
> the printed score.
I respect and appreciate this post, but i have one thing that i can't help but
say about this portion. A classical performer DOES have a humungous nead for
understanding the chord relationships, harmony, and a good knowledge of
theory. with this and a good ear, the performer can then tell what chord tone
they are playing and determine some basic things:
- What the balance of this tone to the others should be
- How to play the note IN TUNE
generally, people think a piano is in tune, but it isn't. it is equal
tempered. That means that there is an equal distance in pitch between half
steps. This, however, is not true when you play a chord in tune. A piano
tuner knows that when going through the cycle of 5ths to get the two "base"
octaves in tune, the must get them in tune, and then 'temper' the fifth down a
little bit. This is because when a fifth interval is "in tune" the fifth is
actually 2 cents (2% of the distance between two equal tempered half steps)
sharp. This will create resultant tones, and overtones, that will light up an
auditorium, but if it's not in tune, it doesn't happen. You might say "2
cents is nothing!" but some notes are as much as 14 cents off!
most of this is done automatically for a good performer who has played long
enough to hear when a note is in tune, but it is still highly adventageous to
know the reason behind it.
Eric Pruett
Trumpet Player
Cambiata@.epix.net
You knew it would happen - someone with multiple undergraduate and graduate
degrees from prestigious conservatories, with a MAJOR IN MUSIC THEORY would
read this post. Someone who teaches music theory, and is a successful,
well-paid musician. That's me - no jive. Frankly, your post is so packed with
- well - "non-chord tones" (hee hee hee) that I scarcely know where to begin
to refute this. Must be, you were drageed through so-called theory courses by
folks who themselves were dragged through - kinda like the Eskimo on the
Cliquot Club soda bottle.
After reading such a manifesto, all I can say is - the FBI are holding the
wrong person as the Unabomber.
Albert Silverman
Eric Pruett <prue...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Albert Silverman wrote:
>
>> WHO needs to understand chord relationships?
>>
>> In the ultimate analysis, what it all boils down to in the musical wash is
>> whether or not Musical Academia should serve those who have a NEED to
>> understand the principles of chord relationships. In this regard, anyone
>> who
>>
>> (1) composes "serious" music based upon the triad,
>> (2) arranges or transcribes music in the popular style,
>> (3) improvises in the popular style, or
>> (4) teaches music in the popular style
>>
>> has a need to understand these principles. Even composers who are not
>> composing triadic music still need this knowledge, which is the backbone of
>> musical "literacy."
>>
>> On the other hand, there is very little evidence that the "classical" music
>> PERFORMER need know much of anything about chord relationships. All that
>> he/she need do is read the notes which are set in front of him/her; the
>> principles employed to compose the music are of no practical importance. In
>> other words, the instrumental performer who is not improvising can, without
>> any knowledge of chord relationships, safely navigate his/her way through
>> the printed score.
>
>say about this portion. A classical performer DOES have a humungous nead for
>understanding the chord relationships, harmony, and a good knowledge of
>theory. with this and a good ear, the performer can then tell what chord tone
>they are playing and determine some basic things:
>
>- What the balance of this tone to the others should be
>
>- How to play the note IN TUNE
>
>generally, people think a piano is in tune, but it isn't. it is equal
>tempered. That means that there is an equal distance in pitch between half
>steps. This, however, is not true when you play a chord in tune. A piano
>tuner knows that when going through the cycle of 5ths to get the two "base"
>octaves in tune, the must get them in tune, and then 'temper' the fifth down a
>little bit. This is because when a fifth interval is "in tune" the fifth is
>actually 2 cents (2% of the distance between two equal tempered half steps)
>sharp. This will create resultant tones, and overtones, that will light up an
>auditorium, but if it's not in tune, it doesn't happen. You might say "2
>cents is nothing!" but some notes are as much as 14 cents off!
>
>most of this is done automatically for a good performer who has played long
>enough to hear when a note is in tune, but it is still highly adventageous to
>know the reason behind it.
I believe that the "advantage" of playing a piece "in tune" (i.e., in a
"just" rather than a tempered scale) is illusory. Certainly, if one is
playing SOLO, he can make the necessary fine adjustments which are
required in order to play "in tune." However, in orchestral playing, it
simply will not do for each instrumentalist to fine-tune his pitch to
just temperament. What a cacophony this would be!
Therefore, as a matter of practical necessity, it was long ago decided
that the tempered scale was to be the standard for ensemble playing, as
well as for keyboard instruments. Admittedly, while solo performers (and
singers) still will attempt to play "in tune," they have, in the bigger
picture, "lost the battle."
To the point, however, is whether or not scale temperament has anything
to do with chord relationships (i.e., with harmonic structural matters).
It does not, since the "dynamic" basis of harmonic structure is not
related to any natural phenomena. Hence I stand by my contention that
instrumental performers _who play strictly from the written note_ have no
PRACTICAL need to understand the underlying theory of chord relationships.
Matthew H. Fields
Albert Silverman <slv...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I believe that the "advantage" of playing a piece "in tune" (i.e., in a
>"just" rather than a tempered scale) is illusory. Certainly, if one is
>playing SOLO, he can make the necessary fine adjustments which are
>required in order to play "in tune." However, in orchestral playing, it
>simply will not do for each instrumentalist to fine-tune his pitch to
>just temperament. What a cacophony this would be!
>Therefore, as a matter of practical necessity, it was long ago decided
>that the tempered scale was to be the standard for ensemble playing, as
>well as for keyboard instruments. Admittedly, while solo performers (and
>singers) still will attempt to play "in tune," they have, in the bigger
>picture, "lost the battle."
Well, now we've got a definite statement on psychoacoustics here.
Having played in orchestras, I report that this alleged long-ago decision
(ancient theory) turns out not to be the case.
>To the point, however, is whether or not scale temperament has anything
>to do with chord relationships (i.e., with harmonic structural matters).
>It does not, since the "dynamic" basis of harmonic structure is not
>related to any natural phenomena. Hence I stand by my contention that
"Natural phenomena" is a new term in this discussion, unrelated to
any of the previous sentences. Its introduction here doesn't
explain what you mean by the widespread adoption of equal temperment
for ensemble playing, which itself is simply not the case.
>instrumental performers _who play strictly from the written note_ have no
>PRACTICAL need to understand the underlying theory of chord relationships.
What do you mean by "strictly from the written note?" That does not describe,
for instance, competent classical performers.
--
_ || Composer and educator
/ \ * || URL:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
* | * || URL:mailto:fie...@umich.edu
Dr. Matthew H. / ields || Phone 313-936-7579 days, 313-769-4836 eves.
John Ladasky
Albert Silverman <slv...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I stand by my contention that
>PRACTICAL need to understand the underlying theory of chord relationships.
I would say that instrumental performers who play strictly from
the written note, without a deeper understanding of musical structure,
are likely to be rather uninspiring to listen to.
--
Unique ID : Ladasky, John Joseph Jr.
Title : BA Biochemistry, U.C. Berkeley, 1989 (Ph.D. perhaps 1998???)
Location : Stanford University, Dept. of Structural Biology, Fairchild D-105
Keywords : immunology, music, running, Green
Albert Silverman
well-paid musician! Golly gee whiz!
But, oh Great One, since you seem to be at a loss for a start, I would
suggest that you make a humble beginning by
*TELLING US YOUR NAME*
Certainly with "credentials" such as yours, you would want to alert the
world to the fact that there is a musical genius (albeit currently
unrecognized) in our midst!
-----------------------
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
What a fabulous place!!
Gregory Taylor
>But, oh Great One, since you seem to be at a loss for a start, I would
>suggest that you make a humble beginning by
>
> *TELLING US YOUR NAME*
>
>Certainly with "credentials" such as yours, you would want to alert the
>world to the fact that there is a musical genius (albeit currently
>unrecognized) in our midst!
And the obnoxious bit of superannuation who self-righteously demands this
is the same man who, at one point, bragged to us about being a published
author and then er...decided to not bother to tell anyone what it was
he'd actually written? Sauce for the goose oughta be sauce for the gander,
oh whingeing repository of CAPS-LOCKED flummery.
You need to cultivate a dynamic pair-bond with the real world, Al.
Cordially,
Gregory
--
I would go to her, lay it all out, unedited. The plot was a simple one,
paraphrasable by the most ingenuous of nets. The life we lead is our only
maybe. The tale we tell is the must that we make by living it. [Richard
Powers, "Galatea 2.2"] Gregory Taylor/Host, RTQE/WORT-FM 89.9/Madison, WI
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
>It does not, since the "dynamic" basis of harmonic structure is not
>related to any natural phenomena.
I've heard that claim more than twice, but never seen a justification
for it. Can you or anyone give me the justification or a pointer to
it?
Antti-Juhani
----
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Tampere, Finland
WWW: http://www.sci.fi/~gaia/ (In English)
Katso myös http://www.sci.fi/~gaia/ve/ (Sorry, Finnish only)
Ross Driedger
In article <4loat2$c...@fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com>, gta...@msn.fullfeed.com (Gregory Taylor) says:
>
>Albert Silverman <slv...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>But, oh Great One, since you seem to be at a loss for a start, I would
>>suggest that you make a humble beginning by
>>
>> *TELLING US YOUR NAME*
>>
This is standard Silvermania. He accused me of being a coward and not posting my
name. He shutup very quickly when I posted explict instructions on how to
get to my office. I did everything but mail him the ticket
>And the obnoxious bit of superannuation who self-righteously demands this
>is the same man who, at one point, bragged to us about being a published
>author and then er...decided to not bother to tell anyone what it was
>he'd actually written? Sauce for the goose oughta be sauce for the gander,
>oh whingeing repository of CAPS-LOCKED flummery.
This kind of hypocricy is par for the kooks' course.
>You need to cultivate a dynamic pair-bond with the real world, Al.
He tried, but reality showed symptoms of rejection....
John Ladasky
In article <4locdh$7...@tron.sci.fi>,
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <Antti-Juhan...@sci.fi> wrote:
>slv...@netcom.com (Albert Silverman) wrote:
>
>>It does not, since the "dynamic" basis of harmonic structure is not
>>related to any natural phenomena.
>
>I've heard that claim more than twice, but never seen a justification
>for it. Can you or anyone give me the justification or a pointer to
>it?
Well, Al likes to point at *himself* rather a lot.
Richard Human, Jr.
Although the original post is dated. . .
How do you tune the third of the chord is you have no
understanding of harmony. How do you even know what pitch you
are playing?
Richard Human, Jr.
David Brown
>Richard Human, Jr.
Just as musicians did before there was a theoretical explanation of
harmony. As a self taught musician, I had an intuitive understanding
oh harmony long before I was able to put names to intervals.
David
______________________ ____________________________________
email Red Pepper WWW page
dmb...@iinet.com.au http://www.iinet.com.au/~dmbrown/
______________________ ____________________________________
Matthew H. Fields
In article <4mp7pt$p...@opera.iinet.net.au>,
David Brown <dmb...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>"Richard Human, Jr." <00rbh...@bsuvc.bsu.edu> wrote:
>>Although the original post is dated. . .
>>How do you tune the third of the chord is you have no
>>understanding of harmony. How do you even know what pitch you
>>are playing?
>>Richard Human, Jr.
>Just as musicians did before there was a theoretical explanation of
>harmony. As a self taught musician, I had an intuitive understanding
>oh harmony long before I was able to put names to intervals.
An intuitive understanding of harmony is
an understanding of harmony.
Silverman claimed that classical performers neither have nor need
any understanding of harmony. Both of the replies above appear to make
Silverman's claim seem unlikely.
Lawrence Eckerling
While it is true that many performers do not have an understanding of
harmony, some at least have an "awareness" of harmony. The more you
know, the better off you will be, because you know more! In Leonard
Bernstein's Norton Lectures, he mentions that harmony could be analagous
to "advectives" in linguistics. There is no doubt that a melody with a
change in harmony will have a change in musical meaning. So, conclude
for yourself!
Lawrence Eckerling
Richard St. Clair
fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
>An intuitive understanding of harmony is
>an understanding of harmony.
Thanks Matt - the voice of sanity speaking. On rec.music.early there
is a nifty flamewar going on because I had the temerity to claim that
Josquin des Prez had an intuitive - and therefore, a cognitive -
grasp of harmony, as evidenced in his music on purely empirical
evidence. Some of the fanatical wing there claim that med/ren
composers had *no* concept of harmony. Funny thing how they
just coincidentally wrote music with highly organized and acoustically
sublime series of triads and other vertical sonorities! How they did that
without an intuitive understanding of harmony is beyond me. Yes,
an understanding of harmony! (And maybe it wasn't all that intuitive,
just that the stodgy old theorists of the day were too caught up in
'linear' concerns!)
Rick
Richard St. Clair http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/