What is the Primary Harmonic Approach? Does anyone understand this?

[Mike Donovan]

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_rn=12&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=Primary%20Harmonic%20&cp=25&gs_id=2w&xhr=t&q=Primary%20Harmonic%20Approach&es_nrs=true&pf=p&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Primary+Harmonic+Approach&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.46340616,d.eWU&fp=976e0e3ba9d988a8&biw=1212&bih=544

-Mike

[thomas]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 9:22:50 AM UTC-4, Mike Donovan wrote:
> http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_rn=12&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=Primary%20Harmonic%20&cp=25&gs_id=2w&xhr=t&q=Primary%20Harmonic%20Approach&es_nrs=true&pf=p&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Primary+Harmonic+Approach&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.46340616,d.eWU&fp=976e0e3ba9d988a8&biw=1212&bih=544
>
>
>
> -Mike

This explains it pretty well:

http://primaryharmonicapproach.blogspot.com/2013/05/primary-harmonic-approach-preface.html

I've never heard of it before, but I don't see any harm in it. It seems like it could only be helpful to your understanding of harmony.

[andy-uk .]

Its been a while since I got my physics degree but I make it {12! / 3! 9!} which is 220 ways to extract 3 notes from 12 tones . Look up "lottery mathematics" to prove this ..

Also it annoys me to call them chords , a 12 tone system subverts traditional harmony so they should be given a name like 3 note cluster or cell or something like that.

The concept is really for composition and not much use for improvisation . In short I would find better and correct source material if you wish to pursue this system.

If you did want to chuck in a 12 tone row in real time improvisation you could look at the Slonimsky Thesaurus, there are a few fun examples to take it "out" such as Cm,Dm,E and F sharp triads which constitute a 12 tone row . This is on page 177.

[gabem...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 3:10:14 PM UTC-4, andy-uk . wrote:
> Its been a while since I got my physics degree but I make it {12! / 3! 9!} which is 220 ways to extract 3 notes from 12 tones . Look up "lottery mathematics" to prove this ..
>

Andy you are incorrect. WIth the parameters I have set there are only 110 chords. The chords are built by stacking intervals (no compound intervals).

>
> Also it annoys me to call them chords , a 12 tone system subverts traditional harmony so they should be given a name like 3 note cluster or cell or something like that.
>

Andy, I define a chord as 3 notes. How do you define a chord?

>
> The concept is really for composition and not much use for improvisation . In short I would find better and correct source material if you wish to pursue this system.
>

I disagree. I would encourage you to read Part 4-Part 5

>
> If you did want to chuck in a 12 tone row in real time improvisation you could look at the Slonimsky Thesaurus, there are a few fun examples to take it "out" such as Cm,Dm,E and F sharp triads which constitute a 12 tone row . This is on page 177.

OK.

-Gabe

[andy-uk .]

I count 114 triad type chords on your 110 chord page?

I'm not trying to offend you , these things could be cool for composition I just don't get the maths..I'm a science geek.

[andy-uk .]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:47:01 PM UTC+1, andy-uk . wrote:
> I count 114 triad type chords on your 110 chord page?
>
>
>
> I'm not trying to offend you , these things could be cool for composition I just don't get the maths..I'm a science geek.

I checked my data again and think there are 220 3 note chords form a 12 tone pool. Your approach is interesting but is not what you stated , hence you have no D,F,A in your selection.

The approach you have taken in effect ties the root and has an 11 note pool hence 11!/2!9! giving only 55 "triad chord" choices , you have listed for example 1,b2,2 and 1,2,b2 as different ... they are not.

I suggest you do a more accurate revision of your work :)

[rpjazzguitar]

I don't know why I'm bothering, but I just went through this with this poster, including these exact same questions, on another forum.

It took some time, but eventually I figured out the following.

From what he writes, it sounds like it should be 220 or 55, not 110.

But, the way he gets 110 is to start with a single note, add a simple interval (less than an octave), and then add another simple interval. If you do that you get 110, but every one of those 110 starts with the same bottom note. And, it's two octaves, not one. I never asked him, but I assume that it's 110 times 12 keys.

I'll stop here. I'm offering this only as an explanation of where the 110 number comes from - which took some doing to figure out since I found his initial explanation to be ambiguous and I, like the posters here, came up with both 220 and 55 based on what I thought he was saying.

[andy-uk .]

...WE RULE AT MATHS...

[gabem...@gmail.com]

http://www.primaryharmonicapproach.blogspot.com/2013/05/is-ceg-same-as-cge.html

-Gabe

[gabem...@gmail.com]

http://www.primaryharmonicapproach.blogspot.com/2013/05/are-there-more-than-110-primary-chords.html

-Gabe

[andy-uk .]

Where's Lord Valve when you need him...

[thomas]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:15:16 PM UTC-4, andy-uk . wrote:
> Where's Lord Valve when you need him...

It seems harmless enough to me, although there is a lot of hubris involved in calling it the "primary" harmonic approach. It's something to look into for new voicings once you've mastered all the conventional approaches, nothing more.

[gabem...@gmail.com]

Do you have a suggestion for a more appropriate name?
Primary is simply analogous to the primary colors.
Can you think of one chord you have ever played or ever heard that isn't one of the 110 primary chords or a combination of them?
-Gabe

[thomas]

I say this with respect, but I don't really see a need for your theory at all. Existing, conventional music theory is far more user-friendly and practical. If you want your approach to take off, then you will need to show some practical applications of it that result in new and interesting music.

[thomas]

PS: You might be interested in having a look at works by Mick Goodrick or Wayne Krantz, who've produced similar approaches to harmony.

[David J. Littleboy]

"andy-uk ." wrote in message
news:1a354371-738e-4404...@googlegroups.com...

>
>Where's Lord Valve when you need him...

In the kill file.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

[David J. Littleboy]

Gabe wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:19:58 PM UTC-4, thomas wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:15:16 PM UTC-4, andy-uk . wrote:
>>
>> > Where's Lord Valve when you need him...
>>
>> It seems harmless enough to me, although there is a lot of hubris
>> involved in calling it the "primary" harmonic approach. It's something to
>> look into for new voicings once you've mastered all the conventional
>> approaches, nothing more.
>
>Do you have a suggestion for a more appropriate name?
>Primary is simply analogous to the primary colors.

Dunno about "primary", but arbitrarily picking combinations of notes doesn't
have anything to do with "harmony". So you can't use the word "harmonic".

[andy-uk .]

The whole thing is wrong, he is mixing up "combinations" and "permutations" and that is the last I will say on this.

[gabem...@gmail.com]

Andy, I don't think this is the last time you will comment, but if so, thanks for your contributions!

There are only 110 triads within these parameters
1. Triads are constructed by stacking intervals (no compound intervals)
2. CEG and CGE are considered different triads because they contain different intervals, and sound different
These triads are not arbitrary. I would suggest looking at the post on the blog, 3 ways to organize the 19 chord families.

[gabem...@gmail.com]

Thomas, thanks for the suggestion!

[gabem...@gmail.com]

Thanks for the info!

[gabem...@gmail.com]

Hi David, These triads are not arbitrary. I would suggest you look at the post on the blog, 3 ways to organize the 19 chord families

[Lord Valve]

Go pork your poodle.

[Lord Valve]

"andy-uk ." wrote:

> Where's Lord Valve when you need him...

Building amps.

I've got a new one, way sweet. Single 15" combo,
20 X 22 inches, 36 watts (or thereabouts - depends
on what tubes you put in it), weighs 44 pounds, sounds
absolutely brilliant. My guitarist was howlin' at the
fuckin' moon after playing it for 20 minutes. No pix
yet, but there's a video in the works.

You want this Primary Harmonic wanker done for,
swat 'm yerself, mate. (A little Brit lingo there...)

Lord Valve
Busy

[Joey Goldstein]

On 05-14-13 7:58 PM, gabem...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.primaryharmonicapproach.blogspot.com/2013/05/are-there-more-than-110-primary-chords.html
>
> -Gabe
>

Not sure what the criteria for this list is, but I believe there are
only 20 possible tricords in 12 tone equal temperament.
Unless I've made a mistake somewhere any other combinations of 3
distinct pitch classes can be shown to be either an inversion, a
transposition, or spread voicing (or all 3) of one of these 24 tricords.

Here's the list, with C as the lowest note.
C Db D
C Db Eb
C Db E
C Db F
C Db Gb
C Db G
C Db Ab
C Db A
C Db Bb
(C Db B = C Db D, so it doesn't count)
Total = 9
------------
(C D Eb = C Db Bb)
C D E
C D F
C D Gb
C D A
(C D Bb = C D E)
(C D B = C Db Eb)
Total = 4
-------------
(C Eb E = C Db E)
(C Eb F = C D A)
C Eb Gb
C Eb G
C Eb Ab
(C Eb A = C Eb Gb)
(C Eb Bb = C D F)
(C Eb B = C Db E)
Total = 3
--------------
(C E F = C Db Ab)
(C E Gb = C D Ab)
(C E G = C Eb Ab)
C E Ab
C E A
(C E Bb = C D Gb)
(C E B = C Db F)
Total = 2
------------


Totals: 9 + 6 + 3 + 2 = 20

Any other 3-note chord will be a transposition, an inversion, or a
spread voicing (or all 3) of these 20 "primary" tricords.
Unless I'm missing something of course.





--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/JoeyGoldstein>

[Joey Goldstein]

On 05-15-13 10:28 AM, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>
> Unless I've made a mistake somewhere any other combinations of 3
> distinct pitch classes can be shown to be either an inversion, a
> transposition, or spread voicing (or all 3) of one of these 24 tricords.

Sorry.

Shoulda said:
Unless I've made a mistake somewhere any other combinations of 3
distinct pitch classes can be shown to be either an inversion, a

transposition, or spread voicing (or all 3) of one of these 20 tricords.

[Joey Goldstein]

If you believe that C E G and C G E etc., are different chords, then
your list will be much bigger than 110 chords.
To you, *every* voicing of a 3-note chord is a different chord.
Thank God you exclude transpositions, or do you?
Are C E G and D F# A different "triads" too?

Sorry, but I can't really see the usefulness of thinking about chords in
this way, at all.

[gabem...@gmail.com]

> If you believe that C E G and C G E etc., are different chords, then
> your list will be much bigger than 110 chords.

Could you please post the additional chords.

>
> To you, *every* voicing of a 3-note chord is a different chord.

Correct. They all sound different. They all contain different intervals.

>
> Thank God you exclude transpositions, or do you?

Yes.

>
> Are C E G and D F# A different "triads" too?

No

>
>
>
> Sorry, but I can't really see the usefulness of thinking about chords in
>
> this way, at all.

That's unfortunate.

[gabem...@gmail.com]

> You want this Primary Harmonic wanker done for,
>
> swat 'm yerself, mate. (A little Brit lingo there...)

There will be no swatting, mate. Any question you or your friend could ask, I could answer.

[gabem...@gmail.com]

only 20 possible tricords in 12 tone equal temperament.

Incorrect.

(C Db B = C Db D, so it doesn't count)

Incorrect.

C Db B = 1 / b2 7 = min2nd
min7th

C Db D = 1/ b2 2 = min2nd
min2nd

[Joey Goldstein]

On 05-15-13 7:00 PM, gabem...@gmail.com wrote:
>> If you believe that C E G and C G E etc., are different chords, then
>> your list will be much bigger than 110 chords.
>
> Could you please post the additional chords.

Sure.
Everything that looks like a new tricord here is just a repeat of one of
the ones posted earlier.
I'll re-post the previous list as well, for clarity's sake.
Also, I made at least one mistake previously in that C E A is equivalent
to C Eb G, thereby bringing down the number of "primary" tricords by 1
for a total of 17 rather than 18.
(Note: My addition was wrong last time too. I listed 18 "primary" chords
but said that the number was 20. D'Oh.)

C Db D
C Db Eb
C Db E
C Db F
C Db Gb
C Db G
C Db Ab
C Db A
C Db Bb

(C Db B = C Db D, so it doesn't count)

(C E A = C Eb G)

(C E Bb = C D Gb)
(C E B = C Db F)

Total = 1
------------

From here on in, *every* new tricord is a repeat of one of the 17
"primary" tricords above:

(C F Gb = C Db G)
(C F G = C D G)
(C F Ab = C Eb G)
(C F A = C Eb Ab)
(C F Bb = C D G and)
(C F B = C Db Ab)
Total = 0
----------------

(C Gb G = C Db Ab)
(C Gb Ab = C D Gb)
(C Gb A = C Eb Gb)
(C Gb Bb = C E Gb)
(C Gb B = C Db G)
Total = 0
----------

(C G Ab = C Db F)
(C G A = C D F)
(C G Bb = C D A)
(C G B = C Db Ab)
Total = 0
-------------

(C Ab A = C Db F)
(C Ab Bb = C D E)
(C Ab B = C Eb E)
Total = 0
---------------

(C A Bb = C Db Eb)
(C A B = C D Eb)
Total = 0
--------------

(C Bb B = C Db D)
Total = 0

>>
>> To you, *every* voicing of a 3-note chord is a different chord.
>
> Correct. They all sound different. They all contain different intervals.

So you don't believe in the principal of inversion then?
You do realize that most systems of tonal (i.e. maj/min key-based music)
harmonic analysis rely on the principal of inversion, don't you?
E.g. A I chord is a I chord no matter what its inversion or voicing
happens to be.

And you also believe that, even in the same inversion, the various open
voicings of a chord are somehow different chords from the close voicing
of the same pitch classes?

[Here's a quick primer on the theory of acoustical root.
(Sorry. No time to go into this in any detail but this theory is germane
to the current discussion.)
The feeling of acoustical root comes about in the way that an interval
or group of intervals closely approximates the intervals found in the
overtone series of a fundamental tone.
Chords whose intervals are proportionately similar to those intervals
found in the overtone series of a single fundamental tone have the
strongest feeling that said fundamental tone is the root of the entire
chord voicing.
Chords whose intervals are somewhat dissimilar proportionately to those
intervals found in the overtone series of a single fundamental tone have
a weaker feeling that said fundamental tone is the root of the entire
chord voicing.
Chords whose intervals are extremely dissimilar to those intervals found
in the overtone series of a single fundamental tone have the weakest
feeling that the chord has a root at all.]

Now, not every chord retains the same acoustical root when it is
inverted, assuming it had an acoustical root to begin with.
E.g. There are very few voicings of C Db D that even have a clear,
unambiguous feeling of root at all.
And the ones that do have a root feeling won't necessarily have the same
root when the chord is inverted.
The root feeling of C D Db is very ambiguous but probably comes out on
the side of C being the root in most octaves that you could play this
chord within, especially a lowish octave range.
But D Db C, while also quite ambiguous as far as root feeling is
concerned, probably feels like D is the root in most octaves that it is
playable within.

Still, as far as the triads used in traditional tonal music are
concerned, except for the aug triad, they all retain the same acoustical
root in any inversion or voicing as long as all 3 tones of the triad are
present.
E.g. The acoustical root of C E G, E G C, G C E, C G E, E G C, G E C is C.
Tonal harmony could not exist if this phenomenon of the retained root
feeling upon inversion, aka the principal of inversion, did not exist
within the human ear.
[Regarding aug triads... They always have 3 acoustical roots on any one
of the 3 chord tones, and the one that will be heard as the root will
always be the lowest not of the chord voicing.]

So from my pov your ideas may have some sort of a place in the analysis
of atonal music but have very little utility that I can see for music
that is based on the major/minor key system in even a very modern
version of non-traditional maj/min tonality.

>>
>> Thank God you exclude transpositions, or do you?
>
> Yes.
>>
>> Are C E G and D F# A different "triads" too?
>
> No
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but I can't really see the usefulness of thinking about chords in
>>
>> this way, at all.
>
> That's unfortunate.

Well, I'm still listening.
Try to convince me.
What am I missing?

[Joey Goldstein]

On 05-15-13 7:18 PM, gabem...@gmail.com wrote:
> only 20 possible tricords in 12 tone equal temperament.
>
> Incorrect.

So *you* say.

> (C Db B = C Db D, so it doesn't count)
>
> Incorrect.

So *you* say.

My understanding of pitch class set theory (which is extremely limited
btw), the theory most commonly used for analysis of post tonal music, is
that pitch class sets have a prime order which is governed by the
smallest intervalic arrangement of the pitch class set.
The prime order of C Db B is therefore B C Db which is the same chord as
C Db D when transposed so that the lowest tone is C.

As far as I know, *you* are the only musician out there who sees C Db D
and Db D C as somehow being fundamentally different musical structures.

The onus is one *you* to explain *your* position.

> C Db B = 1 / b2 7 = min2nd
> min7th
>
> C Db D = 1/ b2 2 = min2nd
> min2nd
>

C Db B = min 2nd min 7th
Db B C = min 7th min 2nd
B C Db = min 2nd min 2nd

C Db D = min 2nd min 2nd
Db D C = min 2nd min 7th
D C Db = min 7 min 2nd

They're all the same chord type.

[gabem...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:37:52 PM UTC-4, Joey Goldstein wrote:
> On 05-15-13 7:18 PM, gabem...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > only 20 possible tricords in 12 tone equal temperament.
>
> >
>
> > Incorrect.
>
>
>
> So *you* say.

So *you* say

>
>
>
> > (C Db B = C Db D, so it doesn't count)
>
> >
>
> > Incorrect.
>
>
>
> So *you* say.

So *you* say

>
>
>
> My understanding of pitch class set theory (which is extremely limited
>
> btw), the theory most commonly used for analysis of post tonal music, is
>
> that pitch class sets have a prime order which is governed by the
>
> smallest intervalic arrangement of the pitch class set.
>
> The prime order of C Db B is therefore B C Db which is the same chord as
>
> C Db D when transposed so that the lowest tone is C.

The Primary Harmonic Approach is not based upon Pitch Class Set Theory

>
>
>
> As far as I know, *you* are the only musician out there who sees C Db D
>
> and Db D C as somehow being fundamentally different musical structures.

I assure, there are others, you'll have to trust me on that one. I suggest you play both chords on your guitar. Do they sound the same to you?

>
>
>
> The onus is one *you* to explain *your* position.

See blog. I have done so. http://www.primaryharmonicapproach.blogspot.com

>
>
> > C Db B = 1 / b2 7 = min2nd
>
> > min7th
>
> >
>
> > C Db D = 1/ b2 2 = min2nd
>
> > min2nd
>
> >
>
>
>
> C Db B = min 2nd min 7th
>
> Db B C = min 7th min 2nd
>
> B C Db = min 2nd min 2nd

Same notes yes, sound the same, no.

>
>
>
> C Db D = min 2nd min 2nd
>
> Db D C = min 2nd min 7th
>
> D C Db = min 7 min 2nd


>
>
>
> They're all the same chord type.

That is what you have been taught.

>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Joey Goldstein
>
> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
>
> <http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/JoeyGoldstein>

By the way, really dig your playing!
-Gabe

[gabem...@gmail.com]

I understand it, I have used, I just don't think it is optimal.

>

> You do realize that most systems of tonal (i.e. maj/min key-based music)
>
> harmonic analysis rely on the principal of inversion, don't you?

Of course, that is a primary reason I sought to develop the approach.

>
> E.g. A I chord is a I chord no matter what its inversion or voicing
>
> happens to be.

That is what you were taught.

>
>
>
> And you also believe that, even in the same inversion, the various open
>
> voicings of a chord are somehow different chords from the close voicing
>
> of the same pitch classes?

Yes. A minor 2nd interval sounds different than a compound minor 2nd interval, doesn't it?

>
>
>
> [Here's a quick primer on the theory of acoustical root.
>
> (Sorry. No time to go into this in any detail but this theory is germane
>
> to the current discussion.)
>
> The feeling of acoustical root comes about in the way that an interval
>
> or group of intervals closely approximates the intervals found in the
>
> overtone series of a fundamental tone.
>
> Chords whose intervals are proportionately similar to those intervals
>
> found in the overtone series of a single fundamental tone have the
>
> strongest feeling that said fundamental tone is the root of the entire
>
> chord voicing.
>
> Chords whose intervals are somewhat dissimilar proportionately to those
>
> intervals found in the overtone series of a single fundamental tone have
>
> a weaker feeling that said fundamental tone is the root of the entire
>
> chord voicing.
>
> Chords whose intervals are extremely dissimilar to those intervals found
>
> in the overtone series of a single fundamental tone have the weakest
>
> feeling that the chord has a root at all.]
>
>
>
> Now, not every chord retains the same acoustical root when it is
>
> inverted, assuming it had an acoustical root to begin with.
>
> E.g. There are very few voicings of C Db D that even have a clear,
>
> unambiguous feeling of root at all.

Is that a advantage or disadvantage?

>
> And the ones that do have a root feeling won't necessarily have the same
>
> root when the chord is inverted.

I agree. Why are we taught to consider them the same chord?

>
> The root feeling of C D Db is very ambiguous but probably comes out on
>
> the side of C being the root in most octaves that you could play this
>
> chord within, especially a lowish octave range.
>
> But D Db C, while also quite ambiguous as far as root feeling is
>
> concerned, probably feels like D is the root in most octaves that it is
>
> playable within.

Joey, this is incredibly interesting. Thank you for posting about this. Could you point me in the direction of some literature regarding acoustical root theory? By the way in the last month, this is the most interesting information brought to my attention. Thanks again for posting!

>
>
>
> Still, as far as the triads used in traditional tonal music are
>
> concerned, except for the aug triad, they all retain the same acoustical
>
> root in any inversion or voicing as long as all 3 tones of the triad are
>
> present.
>
> E.g. The acoustical root of C E G, E G C, G C E, C G E, E G C, G E C is C.
>
> Tonal harmony could not exist if this phenomenon of the retained root
>
> feeling upon inversion, aka the principal of inversion, did not exist
>
> within the human ear.

I humbly, disagree.

>
> [Regarding aug triads... They always have 3 acoustical roots on any one
>
> of the 3 chord tones, and the one that will be heard as the root will
>
> always be the lowest not of the chord voicing.]
>
>
>
> So from my pov your ideas may have some sort of a place in the analysis
>
> of atonal music but have very little utility that I can see for music
>
> that is based on the major/minor key system in even a very modern
>
> version of non-traditional maj/min tonality.

Major/Minor Tonality. This to me is very limiting. Is all music narrowed down to major or minor tonality?
2 triads out of 110? Why can't this be expanded?

>
>
>
> >>
>
> >> Thank God you exclude transpositions, or do you?
>
> >
>
> > Yes.
>
> >>
>
> >> Are C E G and D F# A different "triads" too?
>
> >
>
> > No
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Sorry, but I can't really see the usefulness of thinking about chords in
>
> >>
>
> >> this way, at all.
>
> >
>
> > That's unfortunate.
>
>
>
> Well, I'm still listening.
>
> Try to convince me.
>
> What am I missing?

Joey, you have been taught by the best, and you are still listening, I really admire that.
I honestly believe the best way for you to understand is to go through the posts on my blog.
It will take a lot of time, but if you are interested, I believe it will give you the information you need.

http://www.primaryharmonicapproach.blogspot.com

-Gabe

[Lord Valve]

Really? Cool!

1) Which came first - the chicken or the egg?

2) What happens when an irresitable force meets
an un-movable object?

3) Q - How many jazz assholes does it take to change
a lightbulb? (Answer below)


















A - Five - one to change the bulb, and four to stand
around and say "I know more chords than him."

Have a nice diminished.


Lord Valve
Organist

[andy-uk .]

Can I just ask one practical question at this point,....will we be playing "Stonehenge" this evening?

[Joey Goldstein]

On 05-16-13 7:21 AM, gabem...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:37:52 PM UTC-4, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>> On 05-15-13 7:18 PM, gabem...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> only 20 possible tricords in 12 tone equal temperament.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Incorrect.
>>
>>
>>
>> So *you* say.
> So *you* say

That makes no sense.

>>
>>
>>
>>> (C Db B = C Db D, so it doesn't count)
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Incorrect.
>>
>>
>>
>> So *you* say.
> So *you* say

Either does that.

Are you trying to use the "I know you are, but what am I?" defence for
your theory?

>>
>>
>>
>> My understanding of pitch class set theory (which is extremely limited
>>
>> btw), the theory most commonly used for analysis of post tonal music, is
>>
>> that pitch class sets have a prime order which is governed by the
>>
>> smallest intervalic arrangement of the pitch class set.
>>
>> The prime order of C Db B is therefore B C Db which is the same chord as
>>
>> C Db D when transposed so that the lowest tone is C.
>
>
> The Primary Harmonic Approach is not based upon Pitch Class Set Theory

What *is* it based on?

>>
>>
>>
>> As far as I know, *you* are the only musician out there who sees C Db D
>>
>> and Db D C as somehow being fundamentally different musical structures.
>
> I assure, there are others, you'll have to trust me on that one.

But I don't (currently) trust your ideas.
That's why I'm challenging them.

>I suggest you play both chords on your guitar. Do they sound the same to
you?

No. And I've already explained one version of why that is.
But they are still the same pitch class set.
And many other chords do have a sameness about them in their various
inversions and voicings.
That sameness is due to the phenomenon of a shared acoustical root
between the various possible voicings of the chord.
Your "theory" appears to ignore this very very important facet of
harmony which, to me, negates any other value that it might have.
Please explain to me why this is not the case.

>>
>>
>>
>> The onus is one *you* to explain *your* position.
>
> See blog. I have done so. http://www.primaryharmonicapproach.blogspot.com

I've already looked at your blog and have not found the answers that I'm
asking of you.
I'm not going to study every little things you've written because
there's just far too much.
So if you want me to understand your theories you'll have to explain
them to me hear, now.

>>
>>
>>> C Db B = 1 / b2 7 = min2nd
>>
>>> min7th
>>
>>>
>>
>>> C Db D = 1/ b2 2 = min2nd
>>
>>> min2nd
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> C Db B = min 2nd min 7th
>>
>> Db B C = min 7th min 2nd
>>
>> B C Db = min 2nd min 2nd
>
> Same notes yes, sound the same, no.

C E G
C G E
Same notes.
Sameness to the sound.
Why is that?

>>
>>
>>
>> C Db D = min 2nd min 2nd
>>
>> Db D C = min 2nd min 7th
>>
>> D C Db = min 7 min 2nd
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> They're all the same chord type.
>
> That is what you have been taught.

Oiy.
That's what we've *all* been taught.
Certainly there are many logical inconsistencies and ambiguities in the
ways that traditional and non-traditional harmony is usually taught.
E.g. The concept of "root" is not well understood by most musicians in
my experience.
The feeling of root is actually governed by the overtone series, but
most musicians are wholly unaware of this.
That's why some tricords have a strong sense of root no matter what the
inversion or voicing of the 3 notes happens to be.
It's why some tricords have an ambiguous feeling of root and may have a
different root feeling upon inversion or in a different voicing.
And it's why some tricords have very little feeling of root at all in
any inversion or voicing.

But most theory books just tell you to arrange the notes of a chord into
a stack of thirds (presumably because traditional harmony is a tertian
affair) and the lowest note will be the 'root'.
According to that theory, the root of C Db D would be based on these
stack of 3rds with only the 3 notes of said tricord sounding (indicated
with capital note names):
C e g b D f a C#
or
Db f ab C e g b D
or
D f a C e g b Db
or some such nonsense,
which shows that any one of the 3 tones of this tricord could be the
root if it's the lowest note of the chord.
Kinda the same results I got when using acoustical root theory but IMO a
much more circuitous route with much less relevance.

BTW
Acoustical root theory says that the root of a dim triad is a note that
isn't even in the chord.
E.g. The notes of a C# dim triad, C# E G, are not found in the OTS of C#
but rather in the OTS of A.
So the acoustical root of C#dim is A, not C#.
This means that there is often a distinction between a chord's
constructional root (i.e. the tone upon which a chord is constructed
according to some preconceived intervalic formula) and its acoustical
root (i.e. the note that actually sounds like it is the root of the
chord voicing).

> By the way, really dig your playing!
> -Gabe

Thanks!

[Joey Goldstein]

If you've ever played a piece of music that involves the phenomenon of
major or minor keys, and who hasn't?, you've 'used' it.
lol

>I just don't think it is optimal.

Optimal for what?
Non-tonal music?

>>
>
>> You do realize that most systems of tonal (i.e. maj/min key-based music)
>>
>> harmonic analysis rely on the principal of inversion, don't you?
>
> Of course, that is a primary reason I sought to develop the approach.

Why?
Are you not interested in key-based music of any sort?

>>
>> E.g. A I chord is a I chord no matter what its inversion or voicing
>>
>> happens to be.
>
> That is what you were taught.

That's what we've been taught because that's what it *sounds* like.
The reasons why it sounds like chords have roots are not well understood
anymore IMO but that's another matter.

>>
>>
>>
>> And you also believe that, even in the same inversion, the various open
>>
>> voicings of a chord are somehow different chords from the close voicing
>>
>> of the same pitch classes?
>
> Yes. A minor 2nd interval sounds different than a compound minor 2nd interval, doesn't it?

Yes, somewhat.
But there is also a sameness to the two intervals as well that you're
ignoring.

Y'know that whole thing in classical analysis of using figured bass
designations for the various chords of a piece is predicated on the idea
that there is a shared root between the 3 inversions of a triad but that
each inversion needs its own figuration because the various inversions
sound different as well.
But they make no disinction between various voicings of the same inversion.

>> [Here's a quick primer on the theory of acoustical root.
>>
>> (Sorry. No time to go into this in any detail but this theory is germane
>>
>> to the current discussion.)
>>
>> The feeling of acoustical root comes about in the way that an interval
>>
>> or group of intervals closely approximates the intervals found in the
>>
>> overtone series of a fundamental tone.
>>
>> Chords whose intervals are proportionately similar to those intervals
>>
>> found in the overtone series of a single fundamental tone have the
>>
>> strongest feeling that said fundamental tone is the root of the entire
>>
>> chord voicing.
>>
>> Chords whose intervals are somewhat dissimilar proportionately to those
>>
>> intervals found in the overtone series of a single fundamental tone have
>>
>> a weaker feeling that said fundamental tone is the root of the entire
>>
>> chord voicing.
>>
>> Chords whose intervals are extremely dissimilar to those intervals found
>>
>> in the overtone series of a single fundamental tone have the weakest
>>
>> feeling that the chord has a root at all.]
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, not every chord retains the same acoustical root when it is
>>
>> inverted, assuming it had an acoustical root to begin with.
>>
>> E.g. There are very few voicings of C Db D that even have a clear,
>>
>> unambiguous feeling of root at all.
>
> Is that a advantage or disadvantage?

Neither. It's just the way it is with that particular set of pitch classes.

>>
>> And the ones that do have a root feeling won't necessarily have the same
>>
>> root when the chord is inverted.
>
> I agree. Why are we taught to consider them the same chord?

We are taught that the chords have both similarities to one another as
well as differences.
And depending on our musical needs, in the context of a piece, we can
make intelligent decisions about which chords we want to utilize.

>> The root feeling of C D Db is very ambiguous but probably comes out on
>>
>> the side of C being the root in most octaves that you could play this
>>
>> chord within, especially a lowish octave range.
>>
>> But D Db C, while also quite ambiguous as far as root feeling is
>>
>> concerned, probably feels like D is the root in most octaves that it is
>>
>> playable within.
>
> Joey, this is incredibly interesting. Thank you for posting about this. Could you point me in the direction of some literature regarding acoustical root theory? By the way in the last month, this is the most interesting information brought to my attention. Thanks again for posting!

Rameau - Traite de Harmonie
Hindemith - The Craft Of Musical Composition
Delamont - Modern Harmonic Technique - Vol 1.

Or you could do a GoogleGroups search on the terms "acoustical root"
with me as the author.

>>
>>
>>
>> Still, as far as the triads used in traditional tonal music are
>>
>> concerned, except for the aug triad, they all retain the same acoustical
>>
>> root in any inversion or voicing as long as all 3 tones of the triad are
>>
>> present.
>>
>> E.g. The acoustical root of C E G, E G C, G C E, C G E, E G C, G E C is C.
>>
>> Tonal harmony could not exist if this phenomenon of the retained root
>>
>> feeling upon inversion, aka the principal of inversion, did not exist
>>
>> within the human ear.
>
> I humbly, disagree.

Then you don't understand tonal (i.e. maj/min key-based) harmony.

>>
>> [Regarding aug triads... They always have 3 acoustical roots on any one
>>
>> of the 3 chord tones, and the one that will be heard as the root will
>>
>> always be the lowest not of the chord voicing.]
>>
>>
>>
>> So from my pov your ideas may have some sort of a place in the analysis
>>
>> of atonal music but have very little utility that I can see for music
>>
>> that is based on the major/minor key system in even a very modern
>>
>> version of non-traditional maj/min tonality.
>
> Major/Minor Tonality. This to me is very limiting. Is all music narrowed down to major or minor tonality?

No. Just the stuff that is in a key or keys.

> 2 triads out of 110?

Huh?

> Why can't this be expanded?

'Expanded'?
Can what be expanded?
From what, to what?

>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Thank God you exclude transpositions, or do you?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Are C E G and D F# A different "triads" too?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> No
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Sorry, but I can't really see the usefulness of thinking about chords in
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> this way, at all.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> That's unfortunate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, I'm still listening.
>>
>> Try to convince me.
>>
>> What am I missing?
>
> Joey, you have been taught by the best, and you are still listening, I really admire that.

Well..., yes and no.
Except for the 7 semesters I did at Berklee in the early 1970s I'm
mostly self taught.

> I honestly believe the best way for you to understand is to go through the posts on my blog.
> It will take a lot of time,

Time I don't have. Sorry.
From my perspective I've already spent too much time on this.

> but if you are interested, I believe it will give you the information you need.
>
> http://www.primaryharmonicapproach.blogspot.com
>
> -Gabe
>

[gabem...@gmail.com]

Joey if you can't take the time to read what I have suggested I also don't have the time to go through this with you step by step.
It's been interesting.
-Gabe

[Lord Valve]

gabem...@gmail.com wrote:

> > 1) Which came first - the chicken or the egg?
> >

> the yolk

Actually, the rooster came first. Thanks for playing.

> > 2) What happens when an irresistable force meets
> >
> > an un-movable object?
>
> Silence

You should try some - it sounds better than your "chords."

> Lord Valve you are just as I expected you to be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvDCa1NJPz0


Lord Valve
Organist

[gabem...@gmail.com]

Hi Joey,
Thinking out loud in regards to Acoustic Root Theory.

C (130.8 Hz)

C C G C E G Bb C D E F# G A Bb B C C# D D# E F F# F# G G# G# A A# A# B B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Does this go on?
When do we stop being able to audibly perceive the overtones?

Primary chords created by stacking intervals (from the 31 tones above)

1/43, 1/35, 1/3#4, 1/b3#5, 1/23, 1/23, 1/2b3, 1/b2b3, 1/2b3, 1/b22, 1/b22

8 Primary Chords (created by stacking intervals), only 2 belong to the same chord family (6 chord groupings of the 110 primary chords)

*just an observation

Intervals (based from the C 1), and C 16)

1-17
every interval is present 1x, perfect 5th (3), major 3rd (2), minor 7th (2),

16-31, every interval is present 1x, aug 4th (2), aug 5th (2), min 7th (2), maj 7th (2)

In acoustic root theory the combinations of all that is going on above with one note then interacts with 2 other notes (for a triad), the resulting combination of all the interactions has a tone that is most closely related to all those interactions in terms of consonance. This would be known as the acoustic root.
Is this correct?
-Gabe

[gabem...@gmail.com]

Joey, I edited the first post on my blog. I believe it is much clearer. I hope at some time in the future you get a chance to read it. I'm going to Berklee today to present it to some professors. Thanks for you help in the vetting process of the approach!
-Gabe

http://www.primaryharmonicapproach.blogspot.com/2013/05/primary-harmonic-approach-preface.html

[Steve Freides]

Mike Donovan wrote:

-snip-

This thread has given me a headache at on a Friday morning.

There is nothing new under the sun.

One can write about the mathematics of pitch collections until the cows
come home but that doesn't mean.music works like math - it doesn't.

You'll find very few, if any, instances in the history of music, even
across genres, cultures, and history, that's successful and has stood
the test of time that was created by people following mathematical
rules. People write the music they feel, we all trust our guts as to
what's good and what's not, and then people (like me, btw, a former
college theory teacher) come along and analyze it and explain _why_ it's
good. But no one ought to delude themselves into thinking that any
theoretical explanation can completely explain why one piece of music is
good and another isn't. The really good theoreticians are almost never
the really good composers or performers.

Pitch collection, schmitz collection. Quit reading this thread, go pick
up your guitar, and play.

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

-S-

[gabem...@gmail.com]

You are definitely in the majority regarding these topics.
I'm sorry this thread has given you a headache.

-Gabe

[Lord Valve]

Finally! ;-)

These folks are arguing about the difference between
pounding on a garbage can lid with a broom handle
and laying down hot meter on a ride cymbal with a
Regal 5A. You can show mathematically that the two
are equivalent, but as for me...make mine Zildjian, baby.

Lord Valve
Organist

[Joey Goldstein]

On 05-17-13 8:11 AM, gabem...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Joey,
> Thinking out loud in regards to Acoustic Root Theory.
>
> C (130.8 Hz)
>
> C C G C E G Bb C D E F# G A Bb B C C# D D# E F F# F# G G# G# A A# A# B B
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Tip: You need to use a mono-spaced font, like Courier, if you want the
letter names and the partial numbers to line up in a usenet post.
I've rearranged your text list on my system using a mono-spaced font, so
you should be able to see the letters and numbers lining up correctly now.
If not, and you're using GoogleGroups to read this newsgroup, then make
sure you select the mono-spaced font option.
If you're using a dedicated newsreader then check your prefs for same.

The 13th partial is a pitch that is between an equal tempered (ET) Ab
and A but for most musical theories that I'm acquainted with it is
usually identified with A.
The 26th partial will be this same pitch, one octave higher.
The pitch of the 23rd partial is somewhere between F# and G but F# is
closer to the 11th and 22nd partials.
In ET those high A#'s will be equivalent to an octave doubling of the
7th partial.
7, 14, 28... So A# is the 28th partial and the 29th partial is somewhere
between Bb and B.
etc.

But for most practical music making purposes that I've seen, the OTS is
rarely invoked above the 13th partial.

> Does this go on?

Goes on to infinity if you want to.

> When do we stop being able to audibly perceive the overtones?

Only the very lowest notes, e.g. A-27.5hz - the lowest A on a full-sized
piano keyboard, will you hear any individual audible overtones.
But the timbre of a note will be created by the relative amplitudes of
the various overtones and their in-or-out-of-tuneness.

Overtones don't have to be audible in order to affect the feeling of an
interval's or a chord's acoustical root.
IMO There is some sort of as-yet-to-be-identified mechanism in the human
mind that looks for and recognizes frequency ratios within the sound
waves that hit the human ear.
This probably evolved with humans being able to distinguish the octave
or so difference between the male and female voice and progressed
somehow from there.
As you should know, octave equivalence, is a feature of almost all
pitched music across almost all cultures one of the main exceptions
being the Gamelan music of Bali in which octave equivalence has little
if any role.
You do believe in octave equivalence in your theory, don't you?

As far as why it is that most people have not heard about acoustical
root theory...
There are certain scholars who claim to have discredited it and many of
the writings of the people who believe in the theory are either hard to
parse (e.g. Rameau and Hindemith) or logically inconsistent (e.g. Delamont).
Still, I've become a believer myself, based on my exposure to the
Delamont book, because the results I get when applying it are, more
often than not, very useful to me as a way of understanding certain
vertical qualities of most possible chord voicings.

I didn't want to get into this, but here's the theory explained...

The first overtones of a fundamental tone possess all the tones of the
major triad.

Here's the lower part of the OTS of A-110hz:
A110 A220 E330 A440 C#550
So the frequency ratio between A and E is either 3:1 (P12th) or 3:2. (P5th)
Other than a unison or an octave, these are the simplest freq ratios
possible.
This theory states that intervals with the simplest freq ratio exhibit
the strongest sense that the fundamental of that ratio (i.e. the "1") is
the root of the interval.
Whenever a chord voicing has a P5th or P12th interval as the lowest
interval in the chord you will have a real hard time hearing any note
other than the bass note as the root of that entire chord, no matter how
dissonant the intervals within the upper voices of the voicing happen to be.

The next simplest freq ratios are 5:1, 5:2 and 5:3 corresponding to a
maj 18th, a maj 10th and a maj 3rd.

So, a close-voiced Amaj triad built on A440 has the freq ratio of 6:5:4.
E6600:C#550:A440
[Notice that the first instance of the min 3rd interval occurs in the
OTS between the 6th and 5th partials.
Notice also that there is something akin to a min 3rd interval between
the 6th and 7th partials.]
We can see at this point that any inversion of an Amaj triad will still
have the same fundamental or an octave transposition of that fundamental
as its root (aka its "1") because every interval in any voicing of an
Amaj triad will have a as the root of that interval.

1st inv: C# E A (8:6:5)
C#-E is a min 3rd with a freq ratio of 6:5. The only fundamental tone
that has C# as its 5th partial and E as its 6th partial is A. So the
root of C#-E is A.
E-A is a P4th interval with a freq ratio of 4:3 or 8:6.
The only fundamental tone that has E as its 3rd or 6th partial as well
as A as its 2nd or 4th partial is A.
The ac rt of C#-A is also A. (8:5)
Therefore A is the root of the entire chord.

2nd inv: E A C# (5:4:3)
The ac rt of E-A is A. (4:3)
The ac rt of A C# is A. (5:4)
The ac rt of E-C# is A. (5:3)
Therefore A is the root of the entire chord.

That's what "root" actually means.
I.e. A chord's root is the perceived fundamental frequency (the "1") of
the entire chord.

When we hear chords whose intervals are spaced differently than the
intervals of a single tone's fundamental frequency, or whose intervals
all have different fundamentals, we experience that chord as having a
less strong feeling of root as well as increased vertical tension.
If the intervals of the voicing are so out of alignment with those in
the OTS the chord might not have a feeling of root at all.

Now let's look at dim triads next.
C# E G = 7:6:5 with A being = to 1. (Ignoring the fact that E-G can also
be seen as partials 5 and 6 of C)
So the ac rt of a dim triad is a tone that isn't even in that triad.
Every interval in a dim triad can be seen as having the same ac rt, so
every inversion of a dim triad will have the same ac rt.
There is no other possible tone whose overtones more closely resemble
those of a C# dim triad, within the lower regions of its OTS, than the
tone A.

1st inv: E G C#
The ac rt of E-G, if heard as an isolated interval, would be seen as
being C (i.e. 6:5 of the OTS of C).
But the other candidate for the root of E-G is of course A, in which
case the partial numbers would be a bit higher @ 7:5.
Higher partial numbers will impart a less pronounced root feeling.
G-C# could be 11:8 of G or 10:7 of A. Notice that A involves lower
partial numbers.
E-C# unambiguously has a root on A @ either 5:3 or 10:6.
And because of the strong root feeling of E-C# as well as the fact that
each of the other intervals is also found within the OTS of A we can
confidently say that the ac rt of the entire chord is A.

Now min triads are a bit more complicated.

A C E
The ac rt of A-C is F (@ 6:5).
In another chord we might deem it to have a root on D (@ 7:6).
The ac rt of C-E is unambiguously C (@ 5:4).
The ac rt of A-E is unambiguously A (@ 3:2 or 6:4).
So within this Am triad we have all these notes, F C D and A competing
for prominence within the ear.
But because of the presence of the strongest interval, the P5th between
A and E, the ear is swayed that A is the ac rt of the entire chord.
Take away either the A or the E and the remaining intervals (A-C, or
C-E) will not have A as their ac rt.
This means that when the Am triad is heard as a whole, that the C is
experienced as a distorted version of A's 5th partial.
I denote distorted partial numbers with an asterisk next to them.
A C E = 6:5*:4 of A.
There is no other possible tone whose overtones more closely resemble
those of a close-voiced Am triad, within the lower regions of its OTS,
than the tone A.

1st inv
C E A
C-E is 5:4 of C.
E A is 4:3 (or 8:6) of A.
C-A is 5:3 of F.
But taken as a whole, because of the strong root suggestion of the
interval E-A, the chord will be experienced with an ac rt of A with the
following partial numbers: 8:6:5*.
There is no other possible tone whose overtones more closely resemble
those of a 1st inv Am triad, within the lower regions of its OTS, than
the tone A.

2nd inv
E A C
E-A is 4:3 of A.
A-C is 6:5 of F.
E-C is 8:5 of C.
But taken as a whole, because of the strong root suggestion of the
interval E-A, the chord will be experienced with an ac rt of A with the
following partial numbers: 5*:4:3.
There is no other possible tone whose overtones more closely resemble
those of a 1st inv Am triad, within the lower regions of its OTS, than
the tone A.
This distorted 5th partial accounts for the stronger vertical tension of
min triads vs that of maj triads.

Aug triads:
A C# E#
The ac rt of A-C# is A (@ 5:4).
The ac rt of C#-E# is C# (@ 5:4).
The ac rt of A-F is F (@ 8:5).
With A-C# at the bottom of the voicing with its simple 5:4 ratio it will
sway the ear that a is the ac rt of the entire chord which means that
the E# is being experienced as a distorted 6th partial.
6*:5:4.

The other 2 inversions of this triad will both feel as if the lowest
tone is the ac rt of the chord.

The theory of course can be expanded upon to include 7th, 9th, 11th,
13th and non-tertian chords of any size.

In a nutshell it boils down to the idea that the when presented with
several simultaneously sounding intervals the ear tries to hear them as
all originating from a single fundamental tone.
To the extent that the chord's intervals match those of a single
fundamental that chord will be the most in harmony and the least
vertically dissonant as well as having the most pronounced feeling of root.
To the extent that the chord's intervals don't match those of a single
fundamental that chord will be less harmonious and the more vertically
dissonant as well as having a less pronounced feeling of root.

That's it for now.
I'm all typed out.
No time to proof read either.
Sorry for any mistakes or typos.

For more, check Gordon Delamont's Modern Harmonic Technique, Vol 1,
Kendor Press.

> Primary chords created by stacking intervals (from the 31 tones above)

The 12 tone scale exists within the first 21 or 25 partials.

From the OTS of A:
A C# E G B D# F/F# G# A# C D
4 5 6 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
or
A C# E G B D# F# G# A# C D F
4 5 6 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 25

> 1/43, 1/35, 1/3#4, 1/b3#5, 1/23, 1/23, 1/2b3, 1/b2b3, 1/2b3, 1/b22, 1/b22

Whatever.
I don't see the need to invoke the OTS in what you're doing.

> 8 Primary Chords (created by stacking intervals), only 2 belong to the same chord family (6 chord groupings of the 110 primary chords)
>
> *just an observation
>
> Intervals (based from the C 1), and C 16)
>
> 1-17
> every interval is present 1x, perfect 5th (3), major 3rd (2), minor 7th (2),
>
> 16-31, every interval is present 1x, aug 4th (2), aug 5th (2), min 7th (2), maj 7th (2)

I don't understand what you've written above and don't really care.
Is there a reason I should care?

> In acoustic root theory the combinations of all that is going on above with one note then interacts with 2 other notes (for a triad), the resulting combination of all the interactions has a tone that is most closely related to all those interactions in terms of consonance. This would be known as the acoustic root.
> Is this correct?

Not "in terms of consonance". In terms of the feeling of root.
Consonance and dissonance are subjective terms and have meant different
things to different composers in different cultures and at different times.
Dissonance simply means the feeling that an interval or chord is in need
of resolution.
That need is governed by style for the most part and not necessarily by
virtue of any vertical characteristic of a chord.
Classical composers felt that 2nd inversion maj and min triads were in
need of resolution and treated the P4th interval as a dissonance even
though the P4th has one of the simplest frequency ratios possible, 4:3.
In jazz and in more modern form of maj/min tonality 2nd inv triads are
not treated as dissonances.
So other terms are need to describe what ypu're talking about, like
density, tension or fusion and these characteristics *are* affected by a
chord's intervals acoustical roots.
The more implied partials and/or distorted partials present within a
chord voicing, the more dense or tense sounding that chord will be.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 05-17-13 8:19 AM, Steve Freides wrote:
> Mike Donovan wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> This thread has given me a headache at on a Friday morning.
>
> There is nothing new under the sun.
>
> One can write about the mathematics of pitch collections until the cows
> come home but that doesn't mean.music works like math - it doesn't.

Who ever said anything to that effect in this thread?

> You'll find very few, if any, instances in the history of music, even
> across genres, cultures, and history, that's successful and has stood
> the test of time that was created by people following mathematical
> rules.

Mostly, but not completely true.
And have you ever considered the maths involved when people were
inventing things like flutes, violins and pianos?
This math is at the heart of everything we do in music.
But it's usually at the subconscious level where we don't need rto pay
any attention to it and can usually proceed just on experience and
intuition.
But I've always believed that the more we can train ourselves to be
aware of what's going on subconsciously and then to make it subconscious
again the better position we are in to make better music.

>People write the music they feel, we all trust our guts as to
> what's good and what's not,

We, here in 2013, can do all that because the mathematicians who
invented all the musical instruments we play music on did so thousands
of years ago and now we have a musical collective unconscious which we
can tap into intuitively without knowing anything about music.
That's what makes music so cool.

>and then people (like me, btw, a former
> college theory teacher) come along and analyze it and explain _why_ it's
> good.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread discussing good or bad music or
good or bad chords or anything like that.
All I've been discussing is whether Gabe's ideas about chords are useful
or not, and only from my own perspective.
Even if don't find them useful I'm sure somebody else might.

>But no one ought to delude themselves into thinking that any
> theoretical explanation can completely explain why one piece of music is
> good and another isn't.

Who is trying to completely explain anything?

>The really good theoreticians are almost never
> the really good composers or performers.
>
> Pitch collection, schmitz collection. Quit reading this thread, go pick
> up your guitar, and play.
>
> Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.
>
> -S-
>
>
>

[Joey Goldstein]

On 05-17-13 4:04 PM, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> As far as why it is that most people have not heard about acoustical
> root theory...
> There are certain scholars who claim to have discredited it

Luckily, I am not a scholar myself, so for the most part I did not
understand their disproofs and what I did understand I didn't agree with.
:-)

[gabem...@gmail.com]

> I don't understand what you've written above and don't really care.

OK.

-Gabe

[Steve Freides]

Joey Goldstein wrote:

> Mostly, but not completely true.
> And have you ever considered the maths involved when people were
> inventing things like flutes, violins and pianos?

My understanding is that, at least in both guitars and pianos, people
attempted to use math in instrument design but, in the end, the most
successful designs were simply copied because no one could really
explain them. Martin acoustic guitars are one example, piano design has
progressed similarly.

> This math is at the heart of everything we do in music.
> But it's usually at the subconscious level where we don't need rto pay
> any attention to it and can usually proceed just on experience and
> intuition.
> But I've always believed that the more we can train ourselves to be
> aware of what's going on subconsciously and then to make it
> subconscious again the better position we are in to make better music.

I don't disagree - I think you said that well.

>> People write the music they feel, we all trust our guts as to
>> what's good and what's not,
>
> We, here in 2013, can do all that because the mathematicians who
> invented all the musical instruments we play music on did so thousands
> of years ago and now we have a musical collective unconscious which we
> can tap into intuitively without knowing anything about music.
> That's what makes music so cool.

Again, I don't think your impression jibes with what we know of the
historical facts. My impression is pretty much the opposite of yours -
people tried all sorts of instruments and figured out what worked by
trial and error, and then we reverse engineered _why_ the good stuff
works.

-S-

[Joey Goldstein]

On 05-18-13 2:35 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>> Mostly, but not completely true.
>> And have you ever considered the maths involved when people were
>> inventing things like flutes, violins and pianos?
>
> My understanding is that, at least in both guitars and pianos, people
> attempted to use math in instrument design but, in the end, the most
> successful designs were simply copied because no one could really
> explain them. Martin acoustic guitars are one example, piano design has
> progressed similarly.

Do you really think that the spacing of the frets on guitar fretboards
just came about by trial and error?
C'mon man.
Do you really think that the 12-tone equally tempered scale came about
without its creators using any math?
C'mon man.

>> This math is at the heart of everything we do in music.
>> But it's usually at the subconscious level where we don't need rto pay
>> any attention to it and can usually proceed just on experience and
>> intuition.
>> But I've always believed that the more we can train ourselves to be
>> aware of what's going on subconsciously and then to make it
>> subconscious again the better position we are in to make better music.
>
> I don't disagree - I think you said that well.
>
>>> People write the music they feel, we all trust our guts as to
>>> what's good and what's not,
>>
>> We, here in 2013, can do all that because the mathematicians who
>> invented all the musical instruments we play music on did so thousands
>> of years ago and now we have a musical collective unconscious which we
>> can tap into intuitively without knowing anything about music.
>> That's what makes music so cool.
>
> Again, I don't think your impression jibes with what we know of the
> historical facts.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
There are no 'historical facts' involved in why it is that someone with
no musical training can hear a Beatles tune and can sing that melody.
It's wholly a cultural thing.
We're surrounded all day every day by tonal harmony and equal temperament.
But this was not always so in human development.
We inherited this music with all of its mathematics, and even if we are
wholly ignorant of those mathematics they are still at the very heart of
what music itself is.

>My impression is pretty much the opposite of yours -
> people tried all sorts of instruments and figured out what worked by
> trial and error, and then we reverse engineered _why_ the good stuff
> works.

Who would even begin thinking about designing a piano with 12 notes to
the octave until after the mathematicians had already created 12 tone
equal temperament?

And I've never bought into that "Music always comes first. Theory comes
second." common knowledge that everybody likes to pull out all the time
either.
Pat Metheny just did a tour last year using acoustic instruments that he
modified and/or invented himself that were triggered by computer and
played by solenoids.
I can't begin to imagine that maths and acoustical theory involved in
all of that before he even decided what the first note of his first
piece would be.
Yes, sometime theory comes first.
Most folks simply don't like music that was created that way because
it's usually so new sounding that they have nothing to gauge it against
or because it's so new that it might not be realized at its full
potential without more trial and error.
But theory does *NOT* always come second.

On my own new CD release there are several tunes that were written as
exercises that tested certain theories I was thinking about at the time.
Nocturnal Heptagon uses some unusual scale choices on Rhythm Changes
that were suggested in George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept.
Had I not been familiar with the LCC I could not have written that tune.
Thanks Charlie is based on a technique/theory that I learned from
Charlie Banacos.
No Charlie, no thanks Charlie. Simple as that.
Fives was based on the theoretical musings of W.A. Mathieu about the
beauty and simplicity of the ratio 5:4 in music making.
Had I not read his theories I would not have written that tune.

Now, whether those tunes are successful or not is another discussion. lol
But theory can and does sometimes come *before* the music.

So IMO this whole anti-theory thing that I keep coming up against in
this newsgroup is, simple put, just bullshit.

[Steve Freides]

Joey Goldstein wrote:
> On 05-18-13 2:35 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
>> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>
>>> Mostly, but not completely true.
>>> And have you ever considered the maths involved when people were
>>> inventing things like flutes, violins and pianos?
>>
>> My understanding is that, at least in both guitars and pianos, people
>> attempted to use math in instrument design but, in the end, the most
>> successful designs were simply copied because no one could really
>> explain them. Martin acoustic guitars are one example, piano design
>> has progressed similarly.
>
> Do you really think that the spacing of the frets on guitar fretboards
> just came about by trial and error?
> C'mon man.
> Do you really think that the 12-tone equally tempered scale came about
> without its creators using any math?
> C'mon man.

You're confusing two different things, IMHO. How to space frets isn't
the same thing as how to brace the top of an acoustic guitar. Fret
spacing is easy - it's math. Bracing, OTOH, is as much black magic as
it is science.

>>> This math is at the heart of everything we do in music.
>>> But it's usually at the subconscious level where we don't need rto
>>> pay any attention to it and can usually proceed just on experience
>>> and intuition.
>>> But I've always believed that the more we can train ourselves to be
>>> aware of what's going on subconsciously and then to make it
>>> subconscious again the better position we are in to make better
>>> music.
>>
>> I don't disagree - I think you said that well.
>>
>>>> People write the music they feel, we all trust our guts as to
>>>> what's good and what's not,
>>>
>>> We, here in 2013, can do all that because the mathematicians who
>>> invented all the musical instruments we play music on did so
>>> thousands of years ago and now we have a musical collective
>>> unconscious which we can tap into intuitively without knowing
>>> anything about music. That's what makes music so cool.
>>
>> Again, I don't think your impression jibes with what we know of the
>> historical facts.
>
> I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

OK. I don't think you understand what I'm saying, either.

OK, sometimes, sure.

> Most folks simply don't like music that was created that way because
> it's usually so new sounding that they have nothing to gauge it
> against or because it's so new that it might not be realized at its
> full potential without more trial and error.
> But theory does *NOT* always come second.

New is new, and better is better, and taste is individual and subject to
the whims of trends, culture, history, and whatever else.

> On my own new CD release there are several tunes that were written as
> exercises that tested certain theories I was thinking about at the
> time. Nocturnal Heptagon uses some unusual scale choices on Rhythm
> Changes that were suggested in George Russell's Lydian Chromatic
> Concept.
> Had I not been familiar with the LCC I could not have written that
> tune. Thanks Charlie is based on a technique/theory that I learned
> from Charlie Banacos.
> No Charlie, no thanks Charlie. Simple as that.
> Fives was based on the theoretical musings of W.A. Mathieu about the
> beauty and simplicity of the ratio 5:4 in music making.
> Had I not read his theories I would not have written that tune.
>
> Now, whether those tunes are successful or not is another discussion.
> lol But theory can and does sometimes come *before* the music.
>
> So IMO this whole anti-theory thing that I keep coming up against in
> this newsgroup is, simple put, just bullshit.

I'm not anti-theory. I teach theory every day, and I don't speak for
anyone here except myself. And last but certainly not least, I'm not a
composer.

-S-