Dissonance
Peter J. Wall
t.r.mcloughlin wrote in message <34723A52...@erols.com>...
>Why are you asking? What type of music?
Well, I'm a young composer, and struggling to find a language with which to
work. As I listen to pieces of music over and over, I notice that the
'dissonace' starts to sound not so dissonant, and it makes me wonder. I'm
trying to compose music that uses traditional dissonances in a 'consonant'
way, at least, consonant to my ears. I was listening to the Prelude from
Tristan und Isolde earlier today and I noticed that it didn't sound the same
to me as the last time I listened to it. I could feel resolution at the
ends of phrases instead of feeling ever propelled into some other key. It's
like my ears have decided to tell me that the 'Tristan' chord is no longer
unstable. It struck me that maybe Charles Ives was onto something when he
talked about how dissonance is just unpleasant to lazy ears. I think that
alot of what is usually called 'dissonance' by people is what they percieve
as cacophony, so what I'm trying to do is present dissonance as a euphony in
my music. I don't know... hard to explain what exactly I'm talking about
because I'm just trying to struggle through it.
Peter J. Wall
pet...@madnet.net
http://www.madnet.net/~peterj
"The greatest question of our time is not communism
versus individualism; not Europe versus America; not
even the East versus West. It is whether men can live
without God." -- Will Durant
t.r.mcloughlin
anonymous wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone could give me a definition of dissonance. As in,
> why is it that people tend to perceive certain intervals as more pleasurable
> than others?
The consonance/dissonance continuum varies among styles and cultures.
There are "physics" explanations that focus on the way sound wave
constructively of destructively interfere with each other.
There are "cosmic" explanations that focus on the relationship
of certain intervals to the nature of the universe.
Check back to an M.Schulter post about "Tritones". She posted
a very cogent observation about the relationship between the
tritone and the "stable" interval of different periods in
european music.
Why are you asking? What type of music?
trm
anonymous
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone could give me a definition of dissonance. As in,
why is it that people tend to perceive certain intervals as more pleasurable
than others? For example, why is a major sixth considered 'more' consonant
than a diminished fifth?
Is there even an accepted definition? Thanks.
Peter J. Wall
--
Albert Silverman
In article <64t4f8$t...@pluto.renterprise.com>,
anonymous <pet...@madnet.net> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I was wondering if anyone could give me a definition of dissonance. As in,
>why is it that people tend to perceive certain intervals as more pleasurable
>than others? For example, why is a major sixth considered 'more' consonant
>than a diminished fifth?
>Is there even an accepted definition? Thanks.
Keep wondering, Peter!
"Dissonance" is one of those many figments of Ancient Imagination, which
have no compositional RELEVANCE.
However, it is a lot of fun to talk about, and people who are bored can
while away many entertaining hours arguing about its "meaning," when
whatever it means is immaterial.
But it beats watching TV!
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
M. Schulter
anonymous <pet...@madnet.net> wrote:
: Hi,
: I was wondering if anyone could give me a definition of dissonance. As in,
: why is it that people tend to perceive certain intervals as more pleasurable
: than others? For example, why is a major sixth considered 'more' consonant
: than a diminished fifth?
: Is there even an accepted definition? Thanks.
Actually, one of the problems here is that there are _several_ common
definitions in use in various contexts:
(1) A "more dissonant" interval might be defined simply as one with a more
complex string ratio or frequency ratio: thus "a fifth (3:2) is more
dissonant than an octave (2:1)." Note that this definition can apply even
though the fifth, like the octave, has been classified as a stable
"consonance" for the past 800 years and more in formal European theory.
(2) A "more dissonant" interval might be defined as one which more
urgently seeks a resolution. Thus in 13th-century common practice (the
period/style with which I'm most familiar), a minor seventh is "more
dissonant" than a major third, because while both intervals are unstable
and eventually require resolution, the minor seventh seeks it more
urgently. By the same token, the minor seventh is less dissonant than a
major seventh.
(3) In a definition not entirely unrelated to (2), a "more dissonant"
interval or combination might be defined as one "less independently
euphonious" in itself, although perhaps very pleasing when properly
resolved. Thus theory tells me, and my ears agree, that a bare minor
seventh is more "dissonant" than a 7/4 combination (that is, a minor
seventh with a third voice at the fourth, creating a sonority of a
seventh plus two pleasant fourths, e.g. D-G-C). Similarly, modern jazz
fans might find the "added sixth" combination (e.g. C-E-G-A) considerably
less "dissonant" (or more pleasing in itself) than a bare major second.
(4) In some styles, "dissonances" are intervals subject to certain
restrictions, and orthodox 16th-century style is a case par excellence.
For example, Gioseffo Zarlino (1558) points out that the fourth (4:3) is a
"consonance," but nevertheless is generally treated as if it were a
"dissonance" in relationship to the lowest part. This means, for example,
that it rarely occurs in two-voice note-against-note writing.
(5) Other definitions from medieval treatises say that a dissonance is a
"hard collision" of notes, or that the notes of a dissonant interval tend
to "flee" each other -- that is, to resolve to a more stable interval.
Marchettus of Padua (c. 1320) gives us the second definition, and
interestingly classifies thirds along with sixths as "tolerable
dissonances," a usage uncommon for the time.
(6) The term is often used in a more connotative way to express
displeasure: "I can't stand that dissonant music" -- as in the sense of
"cacophony."
As to _why_ people find some intervals more pleasing or tense than others,
this is a matter both of acoustics and style. While I agree with medieval
theorists in finding a major second (9:8) milder than a tritone (729:512),
some enthusiasts for 18th-century music might here it the opposite, maybe
especially if the tritone is in a familiar context and the major second in
an unfamiliar context.
If you'll pardon a pun, much perceived musical "dissonance" is largely
"cognitive dissonance" -- the music doesn't fit a person's expectations.
It may or may not "objectively" contain more complex intervals or
combinations than what the listener is used to.
For example, someone oriented to late 19th-century composers such as
Wagner might cry out against the "cacophony" of 13th-century polyphony --
"dissonance" in sense (6). Yet I might argue that the combinations
that this critic protests against -- for example, the fifth and fourth
with an upper major second (C-F-G, a relatively simple frequency ratio
of 6:8:9) -- involve considerably less "dissonance" (1) than typical
Wagnerian harmony.
Incidentally, Ludmila Ulehla has come up with a three-category scheme for
"dissonance" (2) above: he suggests classifying sonorities in any given
period or styles as concords/dual-purpose sonorities/discords. The
"dual-purpose" category is something I'd find handy for classifying lots
of sonorities in various periods which are considered unstable but quite
independently pleasing. Of course, being a good medievalist, I might like
a scheme with at least five or so categories <grin>.
This is hardly a full answer, but I hope that at least I've helped to
suggest how complex the question is, and to invite further dialogue.
Most respectfully,
Margo Schulter
msch...@value.net
Matthew H. Fields
In article <64t4f8$t...@pluto.renterprise.com>,
anonymous <pet...@madnet.net> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I was wondering if anyone could give me a definition of dissonance. As in,
>why is it that people tend to perceive certain intervals as more pleasurable
>than others? For example, why is a major sixth considered 'more' consonant
>than a diminished fifth?
The best understanding we have is that this is a matter of conditioning
and convention.
>Is there even an accepted definition? Thanks.
The convention has changed over the years and centuries. In general,
two highly intertwined notions of dissonance have co-existed:
1) A dissonance is a sound that the listener considers "harsh."
2) A dissonance is a sound occuring in a piece of music
that signals the listener to expect more music to follow,
like a coordinating conjunction or an incomplete phrase or
a semiotic marker like a rise in voice or raise of the hands signals
one that a sentence of spoken language is not yet over.
What specific sounds are "harsh" or "sweet", and what specific sounds
are "dynamic" or "restful"? The answer depends on style and
convention. If you don't know Hebrew, the sound "qi" in the middle of
a sentence will not tell you that another clause is coming, though it
functions roughly as "Such-that", "because", "that-it", or similar
glosses. But after a bit of listening, you may cue in on such a
common word. Getting used to the patterns at this level is how you
become able to sense the art in previously unfamiliar styles of music.
"Dissonance" is usually used in a paradigm in which it is contrasted
with "consonance". So you can find much about its use in this context
in the New Grove Dictionary of Music s.v. "Consonance".
--
Matt Fields, A.Mus.D. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
My Java toy, JARS Top 1%: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/TTTB
CONCERT, BACH AND INTERNET: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/concert.html
ab...@127.0.0.1 - ro...@127.0.0.1 - postm...@127.0.0.1 rhu...@fcc.gov jqu...@fcc.gov sn...@fcc.gov rch...@fcc.gov assistan...@fbi.gov dom...@cyberpromo.com
Albert Silverman
In article <64tgj2$v...@pluto.renterprise.com>,
Peter J. Wall <pet...@madnet.net> wrote:
>t.r.mcloughlin wrote in message <34723A52...@erols.com>...
>
>
>
>work. As I listen to pieces of music over and over, I notice that the
>'dissonace' starts to sound not so dissonant, and it makes me wonder. I'm
>trying to compose music that uses traditional dissonances in a 'consonant'
>way, at least, consonant to my ears. I was listening to the Prelude from
>Tristan und Isolde earlier today and I noticed that it didn't sound the same
>to me as the last time I listened to it. I could feel resolution at the
>ends of phrases instead of feeling ever propelled into some other key. It's
>like my ears have decided to tell me that the 'Tristan' chord is no longer
>unstable. It struck me that maybe Charles Ives was onto something when he
>talked about how dissonance is just unpleasant to lazy ears. I think that
>alot of what is usually called 'dissonance' by people is what they percieve
>as cacophony, so what I'm trying to do is present dissonance as a euphony in
>my music. I don't know... hard to explain what exactly I'm talking about
>because I'm just trying to struggle through it.
Don't worry, Peter. There is never any way that you will EVER find out
the "answer."
Because there isn't any.
Elementary logic, Peter.
Which is singularly missing in Ancient music "theory."
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
>
>Peter J. Wall
Albert Silverman
Well, Peter, do you now feel comfy and warm all over?
Publicity Machine
People who study theory are wasting
their time...the essential element of
music is the unknown...tossing great
lyrics onto beds of sound that feel
wonderful...
if you want Theory become a mathematicaltician
Two new releases from Varulven...
Love Songs Just For You from The Count
Suggested Retail: 11.98
Wholesale 8.98
Boston RR Anthology #20/ US Anth 2
Suggested Retail $12.98
Wholesale $10.00
Send us your street address for a complete
catalogue.
Joe Viglione
P.O. Box 2392
Woburn, MA 01888
USA
tel:(781)935 5386
fax:(781)933 5885
http://www.suresite.com/ma/t/thecount
http://www.suresite.com/ma/v/varulven
Albert Silverman
In article <64tfqs$chl$1...@vnetnews.value.net>,
M. Schulter <msch...@value.net> wrote:
>anonymous <pet...@madnet.net> wrote:
>: Hi,
>
>: I was wondering if anyone could give me a definition of dissonance. As in,
>: why is it that people tend to perceive certain intervals as more pleasurable
>: than others? For example, why is a major sixth considered 'more' consonant
>: than a diminished fifth?
>
>Actually, one of the problems here is that there are _several_ common
>definitions in use in various contexts:
Just like everything else in Ancient Theory, Margo.
Multiple meanings, meaningless drivel.
Whatever you want it to mean, and none of it compositionally RELEVANT!
[imaginative discourse deleted in the interest of spoiling your
entertainment]
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Well Peter, now you know. Does this explanation clarify the subject for you?
Perhaps you would like to rescind your question and start searching for
something RELEVANT upon which to base your musical "understanding."
Perish the thought.
Tore Lund
M. Schulter wrote:
>
> (6) The term is often used in a more connotative way to express
> displeasure: "I can't stand that dissonant music" -- as in the sense of
> "cacophony."
Margot is right that the word "dissonant" is often used with the implied
meaning "cacophonous" - musical vocabulary leaves a lot to be desired in
this field. I think the two concepts should be kept clearly apart. For
an illustration, consider the major seventh chord C E G B. You may or
may not find this chord "dissonant", but, whichever is the case, I am
sure you find it much easier on your ears than the inversion B E G C,
which is a true "cacophony" to me.
What we have here is a case of cacophony vs. *definition*, which is not
the same as consonance. Consonant and dissonant chords are always
well-defined, in the sense that we hear precise relationships between
notes. In fact, the very notion of dissonance implies that we hear some
definite relationship that is harsh or needs resolution. When all
definition breaks down, however, what we have is cacophony.
One could say that traditional theory in this field begins by explaining
consonance, then defines dissonance as everything else and does not even
consider cacophony. It would be better to start by asking oneself what
is the fundamental difference between cacophonous and well-defined
chords, how come we hear a precise *gestalt* rather than a blur.
Incidentally, is anyone able to explain why C E G B is well-defined
whereas B E G C is not? I am not aware of any theory of dissonance that
is even close to explaining such questions.
Tore
--
Tore Lund <tl...@online.no>
Matthew H. Fields
In article <slvrmnEJ...@netcom.com>,
Albert Silverman <slv...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Whatever you want it to mean, and none of it compositionally RELEVANT!
Interesting that this individual brings up relevance to composition
here, when he's made it clear over the years that he has no experience
composing music and measures all relevance by his own method of
improvising piano chords to pre-existing show tunes.
"Dissonance" and "Consonance" do not mean "whatever you want them
to mean", and each of their uses is directly applicable to composing.
Classifying sounds into "harsh" and "sweet"---what could be more
obvious. Classifying sounds into those with which you signal "rest"
to your listener, and those with which you signal "unrest"---again,
a tool of rhetoric and communication, for all forms of composition
in which communication comes into play. Classifying sounds into
"simple" and "complex"---again depends on what you want to do with
simplicity and complexity.
Matt
Matthew H. Fields
In article <3472BB...@online.no>, Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
[...]
>sure you find it much easier on your ears than the inversion B E G C,
>which is a true "cacophony" to me.
>definite relationship that is harsh or needs resolution. When all
>definition breaks down, however, what we have is cacophony.
>One could say that traditional theory in this field begins by explaining
>consonance, then defines dissonance as everything else and does not even
>consider cacophony. It would be better to start by asking oneself what
>is the fundamental difference between cacophonous and well-defined
>chords, how come we hear a precise *gestalt* rather than a blur.
>Incidentally, is anyone able to explain why C E G B is well-defined
>whereas B E G C is not? I am not aware of any theory of dissonance that
>is even close to explaining such questions.
Traditional theory provides contexts in which to sound such sounds
and allow the listener to make sense of them. The "cacaphonous"
sound you mention here is the second sonority in Bach's "Air on the
G String", where it occurs as a passing chord more or less like this:
B B B B B E C A G F# G F# E D
G G G G E E D A
D D E B C G A A F#
G F# E D C C# D C=
^
|
\____This chord right here
I have no idea why you consider it "cacaphonous", when it's just a 6/5
chord with tendency tone in the bass.
Samuel Vriezen
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:13:44 +0100, Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
>Incidentally, is anyone able to explain why C E G B is well-defined
>whereas B E G C is not? I am not aware of any theory of dissonance that
>is even close to explaining such questions.
This is an interesting question. To my ears, the bare major seventh
neatly 'inserts' by itself the fifth and the M3, and is very
suggestive of the major seventh chord, which I hear as quite stable.
Thus I hear the M7 as relatively stable among dissonances. Bare m7
does not do this: it does not suffice to suggest either the dominant
7th chord, which I with 20th century blues spoiled ears hear as rather
stable, or the minor 7th chord. Perhaps it is because the M3 and 5 in
the M7 sonority are more easy to suggest, as they are in very
consonant relationships to the notes already heard; with m7, either M3
or m3 may be inserted, M3 being a tad more common but not in a
particularly consonant relationship with the m7. However it may be, I
hear the bare m7 as a very dissonant interval which also may have to
do with the fact that the welltempered m7 is not quite the natural 7:4
interval.
Now the m9, which I hear as the most dissonant interval in existence
(perhaps its only rival would be the interval one quartertone smaller,
but then I would hear that like an out-of-tune octave, a 'sound
effect': Nono uses it extensively in 'Fragment, Stille - an Diotima',
a fascinating piece). I hear the m9 as more dissonant than the m2: why
is that? I don't really know, it seems the m2 sounds more integrated,
more like one sound, a bit more rough than a prime. I also find it
harder to sing m2 intervals than m9 as I find it harder to distinguish
my own tone from the other. Another interesting phenomenon is, when
you insert octaves between the notes of the m9 it will sound less and
less dissonant, but the sound takes on a completely different eerie
quality. Which reminds me of my teacher who writes not quite atonal
but certainly no tonal music; he does not use octaves but does permit
the use of double octaves, which have according to him a more
dissonant sound.
Anyway, if you calculate the frequency ratios for m9 and M7 you get
17:16 and 15:16 respectively (taking the overtone series as a basis).
So the M7 appears just a bit earlier than the m9, which would explain
the phenomenon a bit. Also, 17 is prime but 15 is composed of 5 and 3,
which both correspond to consonant intervals; this is analogous to the
above-mentioned 'suggestion' by the M7 of M3 and 5. This also neatly
fits in with the tuning theory by the 18th century mathematician Euler
according to which the major scale would contain 8 notes, and the
minor scale 12 (For C major the added note would be F sharp, for c
minor you would have F sharp, B, A, E, D flat. The idea is that with
these complete scales all the notes in the scale can be arranged in
perfect rectangular grids with fifth relationships along one axis and
thirds along the other. The notes Euler comes up with are indeed the
chromatic alterations you will most often encounter.).
However, you might also see the m2 as the inversion of the M7, the
ratio would then be 16:15 or 32:15 for the m9, this is the more
common way of calculating. This would yield a situation analogous to
the situation with fifths and fourths, the inversion being considered
more dissonant than the overtone-sonority. But what about the sixths
and thirds then? Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
Samuel
Tore Lund
Matthew H. Fields wrote:
>
> In article <3472BB...@online.no>, Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
> [...]
> >sure you find it much easier on your ears than the inversion B E G C,
> >which is a true "cacophony" to me.
> [...]
> >definite relationship that is harsh or needs resolution. When all
> >definition breaks down, however, what we have is cacophony.
> >One could say that traditional theory in this field begins by explaining
> >consonance, then defines dissonance as everything else and does not even
> >consider cacophony. It would be better to start by asking oneself what
> >is the fundamental difference between cacophonous and well-defined
> >chords, how come we hear a precise *gestalt* rather than a blur.
> >whereas B E G C is not? I am not aware of any theory of dissonance that
> >is even close to explaining such questions.
>
> and allow the listener to make sense of them. The "cacaphonous"
> sound you mention here is the second sonority in Bach's "Air on the
> G String", where it occurs as a passing chord more or less like this:
>
> B B B B B E C A G F# G F# E D
> G G G G E E D A
> D D E B C G A A F#
> G F# E D C C# D C=
> ^
> |
> \____This chord right here
>
> I have no idea why you consider it "cacaphonous", when it's just a 6/5
> chord with tendency tone in the bass.
Allright, Matt, but your interpretation requires a context. Begin with
silence and play these two chords. To my ears, C E G B immediately
creates a context of C major with a dissonant B in it. B E G C, on the
other hand, creates no context at all. I suspect that this has to do
with conflicting root definitions - C and E and G are all possible
roots, depending on how you see this chord - but why this should have
such a different impact in the two chords is what I'd like to know.
BTW, do you ever sleep? Never mind...
Matthew H. Fields
In article <3472E8...@online.no>, Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
>Allright, Matt, but your interpretation requires a context. Begin with
>silence and play these two chords. To my ears, C E G B immediately
>creates a context of C major with a dissonant B in it. B E G C, on the
>other hand, creates no context at all. I suspect that this has to do
>with conflicting root definitions - C and E and G are all possible
>roots, depending on how you see this chord - but why this should have
>such a different impact in the two chords is what I'd like to know.
Hmmm. To my ear BEGC heard in isolation sounds like B is on its way down
to A, and the reason for that is because I've heard that happen many times.
Perhaps the reason you don't feel like this is that it's not so familiar
to you?
>BTW, do you ever sleep? Never mind...
Sleep? What's that?
Tony T. Warnock
>whereas B E G C is not? I am not aware of any theory of dissonance
>that is even close to explaining such questions.
One possibility is that the fourth, BE, against the bass is usually
treated as dissonant whereas the third, CE, is consonant. Of course this
begs the question of why fourths in the bass are considered dissonant.
My guess is that a fourth agains the base, at least in two part writing,
may imply a 6-4 chord, especially in a cadential context.
Tony
Albert Silverman
In article <34723A52...@erols.com>,
t.r.mcloughlin <tmcl...@erols.com> wrote:
>anonymous wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if anyone could give me a definition of dissonance. As in,
>> why is it that people tend to perceive certain intervals as more pleasurable
>> than others?
>
>
>There are "physics" explanations that focus on the way sound wave
>constructively of destructively interfere with each other.
>
>There are "cosmic" explanations that focus on the relationship
>of certain intervals to the nature of the universe.
These are my personal favorites!
Cosmic rays!
>
>Check back to an M.Schulter post about "Tritones". She posted
>a very cogent observation about the relationship between the
>tritone and the "stable" interval of different periods in
>european music.
Ah yes, Peter, the "stable interval."
This is the period of time that the horse spends at home, in between the
fox hunts.
>
>Why are you asking? What type of music?
Don't ask, Peter, and we won't tell!
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
>
>trm
Greg Whitman
Peter J. Wall <pet...@madnet.net> wrote:
>t.r.mcloughlin wrote in message <34723A52...@erols.com>...
>
[snip]
> I think that
>alot of what is usually called 'dissonance' by people is what they percieve
>as cacophony, so what I'm trying to do is present dissonance as a euphony in
>my music. I don't know... hard to explain what exactly I'm talking about
>because I'm just trying to struggle through it.
(this may have been stated differently elsewhere in the thread, sorry
if I missed it...) The key to using dissonance, from early times, is
proper preparation. The rules for preparing dissonance have changed
since the Middle Ages, but they still exist. Of course, things changed
drastically at the beginning of this century, but what you are becoming
accustomed to is probably not the dissonances themselves, but rather the
contexts in which you find them. You're internalizing the logic inherent
in the preparations and resolutions.
I can't help but think of flipping this around; that is, making a
consonance sound dissonant. The only case I can think of off the
top of my head is where say a tonic pedal point supports a V6/4 ->
5/3 type of harmony, where the octave sounds dissonant because the
first scale degree wants to resolve to the leading tone.
--
C H <clap clap> Chicago <clap clap>
C H <clap clap> Chicago <clap clap>
C H <clap clap> Chicago <clap clap>
What is C H for? Methane!
Greg Whitman
>These are my personal favorites!
>
>Cosmic rays!
>
>Ah yes, Peter, the "stable interval."
>
>This is the period of time that the horse spends at home, in between the
>fox hunts.
>
>Don't ask, Peter, and we won't tell!
Albert, thank you for your learned and insightful comments. Your
contributions to this newsgroup are underappreciated. Perhaps if
you follow up to five or six, or twelve, or one hundred responses
to "Dissonance" saying things like "that's a bunch of hooey!" and
"the Ancient Theorist is all washed up!" that other readers might
give you the credit you're due. Meanwhile I await your next post.
Matthew H. Fields
In article <64vb5c$l...@huitzilo.tezcat.com>,
Greg Whitman <te...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
>In article <64vaeo$juk$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
>Matthew H. Fields <fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>>What about the severely dissonant (in most senses of the term)
>>octave Eb's at the climax of the first movement of Music for
>>Strings, Percussion, and Celeste?
>
>Well, that's just because every note Bartok ever wrote was dissonant.
>Except for the major sevenths and minor seconds in "Major Sevenths,
>Minor Seconds."
Aww, Greg, that's trolling!
>--
>
> "It is time to get drunk!" -- Baudelaire
Greg Whitman
In article <64vaeo$juk$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
Matthew H. Fields <fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>What about the severely dissonant (in most senses of the term)
>octave Eb's at the climax of the first movement of Music for
>Strings, Percussion, and Celeste?
Well, that's just because every note Bartok ever wrote was dissonant.
Except for the major sevenths and minor seconds in "Major Sevenths,
Minor Seconds."
--
Tore Lund
Matthew H. Fields wrote:
>
> In article <3472E8...@online.no>, Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
> >Allright, Matt, but your interpretation requires a context. Begin with
> >silence and play these two chords. To my ears, C E G B immediately
> >creates a context of C major with a dissonant B in it. B E G C, on the
> >other hand, creates no context at all. I suspect that this has to do
> >with conflicting root definitions - C and E and G are all possible
> >roots, depending on how you see this chord - but why this should have
> >such a different impact in the two chords is what I'd like to know.
>
> Hmmm. To my ear BEGC heard in isolation sounds like B is on its way down
> to A, and the reason for that is because I've heard that happen many times.
> Perhaps the reason you don't feel like this is that it's not so familiar
> to you?
That's perfectly possible - I seldom play major sevenths myself.
I believe that tendencies and dissonances in a chord are heard as part
of some gestalt, so familiarity might have something to do with it. For
some other speculations on dissonance and gestalts, please see my answer
to Tony.
Tore Lund
Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:13:44 +0100, Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
>
> >Incidentally, is anyone able to explain why C E G B is well-defined
> >whereas B E G C is not? I am not aware of any theory of dissonance that
> >is even close to explaining such questions.
>
> However, you might also see the m2 as the inversion of the M7, the
> ratio would then be 16:15 or 32:15 for the m9, this is the more
> common way of calculating. This would yield a situation analogous to
> the situation with fifths and fourths, the inversion being considered
> more dissonant than the overtone-sonority. But what about the sixths
> and thirds then? Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
Your last comment says it all. :)
Just want to add that to me, B C and C B are equally dissonant as long
as I hear them *out of context*. (And I doubt that fractions have
anything to do with it.)
Matthew H. Fields
In article <3476575a...@nntp2.ba.best.com>,
Eric Hill <eh...@best.com*> wrote:
>
>>In the chord B E G C, it is possible that B E defines E as a root
>>whereas G C defines C. The result is that we don't hear a clear gestalt
>>(notes organized around some root), which entails that there is no way
>>to tell whether B or C is the "offending" note. Hence all we hear is a
>>blur - at least, that is my theory.
>
>has anybody written anything that exploits this blurriness in certain =
>chords?
Steve Reich, for sure.
Music for 18 musicians...
Tore Lund
Tony T. Warnock wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:13:44 +0100, Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
>
> >Incidentally, is anyone able to explain why C E G B is well-defined
> >whereas B E G C is not? I am not aware of any theory of dissonance
> >that is even close to explaining such questions.
>
> treated as dissonant whereas the third, CE, is consonant. Of course this
> begs the question of why fourths in the bass are considered dissonant.
> My guess is that a fourth agains the base, at least in two part writing,
> may imply a 6-4 chord, especially in a cadential context.
Yes, your latter point may have something to do with it. I believe that
in a dissonant chord you need to see the "offending" notes against some
familiar gestalt. In a C7 chord, for instance, you hear the Bb as a
melodic deviation from C, which is the focus (root) of this chord.
In the chord B E G C, it is possible that B E defines E as a root
whereas G C defines C. The result is that we don't hear a clear gestalt
(notes organized around some root), which entails that there is no way
to tell whether B or C is the "offending" note. Hence all we hear is a
blur - at least, that is my theory.
For some reason, this mechanism works otherwise in C E G B, and I'd like
to find some firm hold for an explanation of this.
t.r.mcloughlin
M. Schulter wrote:
> To my ears, B E G C is certainly "dissonant" with its outer m9, but can be
> pleasing with a nice resolution. Here's one solution I like:
>
> c'' c''
> g' f'
> e' f'
> b c'
>
> Here the compromise is that we resolve to 8/4 rather than a more
> conclusive 8/5 -- in other words, we have the fourth below and the fifth
> above, rather than the converse.
Contrasting
c'' c'' c'' c''
g' f' vs. g' g'
e' f' e' g'
b c' b c'
I like the first better, too. And the reason is this: In the second,
the "dissonance differential" is too great. The 8/5 is *too* consonant
to support the amount of dissonance in the 9/6/4.
Talk about context.
trm
M. Schulter
Samuel Vriezen <s...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
: On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:13:44 +0100, Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
: This is an interesting question. To my ears, the bare major seventh
: neatly 'inserts' by itself the fifth and the M3, and is very
: suggestive of the major seventh chord, which I hear as quite stable.
: Thus I hear the M7 as relatively stable among dissonances. Bare m7
: does not do this: it does not suffice to suggest either the dominant
: 7th chord, which I with 20th century blues spoiled ears hear as rather
: stable, or the minor 7th chord.
This is a very interesting observation, and reminds me that indeed that
these judgements can vary from person to person and from style to style.
To my ears, a minor seventh invites a resolution to the fifth by contrary
motion, and this is a satisfying progression even in a two-voice context,
although there are many ways to harmonize it for three or more voices. I'm
coming from a 13th-century perspective, where m7-5 is one of the basic
_cadentiae_ or two-voice resolutions.
Also, I realize that different styles may be associated with different
tunings of m7; I tend to assume the Pythagorean ratio of 16:9, which makes
this interval more pleasing or blending, as I understand it.
Of course, in 13th-century or 20th-century harmony, the minor seventh
invites use in a three-voice sonority with two fourths: e.g. E-A-D
(16:12:9). Maybe perceptions of intervals depend in part on what harmonic
context the listener is assuming.
Anyway, it's refreshing to be reminded how contextual these perceptions
can be.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
msch...@value.net
Matthew H. Fields
In article <64v3bk$h...@huitzilo.tezcat.com>,
Greg Whitman <te...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
>I can't help but think of flipping this around; that is, making a
>consonance sound dissonant. The only case I can think of off the
>top of my head is where say a tonic pedal point supports a V6/4 ->
>5/3 type of harmony, where the octave sounds dissonant because the
>first scale degree wants to resolve to the leading tone.
What about the severely dissonant (in most senses of the term)
octave Eb's at the climax of the first movement of Music for
Strings, Percussion, and Celeste?
Daniel Testa
In article <64uj6n$15d$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
>[...]
>>sure you find it much easier on your ears than the inversion B E G C,
>>which is a true "cacophony" to me.
>[...]
>>definite relationship that is harsh or needs resolution. When all
>>definition breaks down, however, what we have is cacophony.
>>One could say that traditional theory in this field begins by explaining
>>consonance, then defines dissonance as everything else and does not even
>>consider cacophony. It would be better to start by asking oneself what
>>is the fundamental difference between cacophonous and well-defined
>>chords, how come we hear a precise *gestalt* rather than a blur.
>>whereas B E G C is not? I am not aware of any theory of dissonance that
>>is even close to explaining such questions.
>
>and allow the listener to make sense of them. The "cacaphonous"
>sound you mention here is the second sonority in Bach's "Air on the
>G String", where it occurs as a passing chord more or less like this:
>
>
> B B B B B E C A G F# G F# E D
> G G G G E E D A
> D D E B C G A A F#
> G F# E D C C# D C=
> ^
> |
> \____This chord right here
>
>I have no idea why you consider it "cacaphonous", when it's just a 6/5
>chord with tendency tone in the bass.
>
was there some other reason for it?
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Testa email:tes...@rpi.edu
t.r.mcloughlin
Peter J. Wall wrote:
>
> t.r.mcloughlin wrote in message <34723A52...@erols.com>...
>
> >Why are you asking? What type of music?
>
> work. As I listen to pieces of music over and over, I notice that the
> 'dissonace' starts to sound not so dissonant, and it makes me wonder.
> I was listening to the Prelude from
> Tristan und Isolde earlier today and I noticed that it didn't sound the same
> to me as the last time I listened to it. I could feel resolution at the
> ends of phrases instead of feeling ever propelled into some other key. It's
> like my ears have decided to tell me that the 'Tristan' chord is no longer
> unstable.
Sounds like you know what dissonance is. Brussels Sprouts. Hated them
until I learned about their proper role on the dinner table.
Interesting listening could include:
- The Mystery of the Bulgarian Voice (title in French, but I can't
remember it exactly). Sure, this became a "new age bin" sensation,
but a few of the older simple two voice chants are great examples
of "dissonant" intervals in consonant roles.
- Arvo Part, something like the Stabat Mater. You'll find examples of
"consonant" intervals in dissonant roles.
- Schoenberg Piano Concerto: There's something about the rhetoric
of this work that (for me at least) creates a sense of
of dissonant v. consonant function, even though the majority of
the sonorities are "dissonant".
Sometimes I feel a loss at "maturing" past the point of hearing something
like Tristan as dissonant, even exotic. But every now and then when
my attention is distracted or lazing in bed on Sunday morning, I can
still be amazed at how not-of-my-time is something as un-unusual as
the Schubert Bb Symphony (#5).
trm
ObCurrentListening: The Music of Bill Monroe from 1936 to 1994
t.r.mcloughlin
Matthew H. Fields wrote:
> In article <3472E8...@online.no>, Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
> >Allright, Matt, but your interpretation requires a context. Begin with
> >silence and play these two chords. To my ears, C E G B immediately
> >creates a context of C major with a dissonant B in it. B E G C, on the
> >other hand, creates no context at all.
> Hmmm. To my ear BEGC heard in isolation sounds like B is on its way down
> to A, and the reason for that is because I've heard that happen many times.
> Perhaps the reason you don't feel like this is that it's not so familiar
> to you?
> >BTW, do you ever sleep? Never mind...
>
> Sleep? What's that?
They must not get "The Young and the Restless" in Norway.
(A U.S. daytime television melodramatic serial, the theme song from
which faetures a very similar pattern, which was used as background music
for an Olympic skater(?) in the 1970s(?) and subsequently became part of
the standard rotation of wallpaper music arrangements heard in every
elevetor, shoping center, etc. Talk about context...).
My hypothesis would be that we have a tendency to try to hear
the lowest note as the root, and in the absence of other cues that
make it clear that we are hearing an inversion, we get stuck between
solutions. Try contrasting B-D#-F#-C and B-E-G-C.
Peter J. Wall
Greg Whitman wrote in message <64v3bk$h...@huitzilo.tezcat.com>...
>if I missed it...) The key to using dissonance, from early times, is
>proper preparation. The rules for preparing dissonance have changed
>since the Middle Ages, but they still exist. Of course, things changed
>drastically at the beginning of this century, but what you are becoming
>accustomed to is probably not the dissonances themselves, but rather the
>contexts in which you find them. You're internalizing the logic inherent
>in the preparations and resolutions.
What I have done, for example, in a piece I just finished today, is to
construct a phrase in such a manner so that when you reach the end of it,
you feel closure, but with a chord that in tonal music would be considered
VERY dissonant. i.e. full of minor seconds, tritontes, major sevenths, etc.
It's really interesting the effect it has on a phrase to end with a chord
like this: G C# F# G D F# By itself it might be described as having a
'biting' or 'harsh' sound, but in the context of this piece, (at least to
me) it feels like a resolution. I'm just having loads of fun with this
stuff. :)
I'm not sure if that's what you mean when you say I'm becoming accustomed to
the context and not the actual dissonance.
Peter J. Wall
Matthew H. Fields
In article <64vdfk$2l...@alumni.rpi.edu>,
Daniel Testa <tes...@alumni.rpi.edu> wrote:
>> B B B B B E C A G F# G F# E D
>> G G G G E E D A
>> D D E B C G A A F#
>> G F# E D C C# D C=
>> ^
>> |
>> \____This chord right here
>>
>>I have no idea why you consider it "cacaphonous", when it's just a 6/5
>>chord with tendency tone in the bass.
>>
>Matt, did you transpose this into G major to improve the notation, or
>was there some other reason for it?
I was operating from memory, no special reason for it.
M. Schulter
Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
: this field. I think the two concepts should be kept clearly apart. For
: an illustration, consider the major seventh chord C E G B. You may or
: may not find this chord "dissonant", but, whichever is the case, I am
: sure you find it much easier on your ears than the inversion B E G C,
: which is a true "cacophony" to me.
Hi, there.
To my ears, B E G C is certainly "dissonant" with its outer m9, but can be
pleasing with a nice resolution. Here's one solution I like:
c'' c''
g' f'
e' f'
b c'
Here the compromise is that we resolve to 8/4 rather than a more
conclusive 8/5 -- in other words, we have the fourth below and the fifth
above, rather than the converse. Also, the highest voice remains
stationary, not so paradigmatic in 13th-century style. However, I really
like the parallel fourths in the lowest two voices, and also the contrary
motion of the next-to-highest voice, with nice m6-4 and m3-1 resolutions.
It's a bit offbeat, and I can't speak for Perotin or Adam de la Halle, but
it sounds pleasant to me.
Most respectfully,
Margo Schulter
msch...@value.net
Eric Hill
>In the chord B E G C, it is possible that B E defines E as a root
>whereas G C defines C. The result is that we don't hear a clear gestalt
>(notes organized around some root), which entails that there is no way
>to tell whether B or C is the "offending" note. Hence all we hear is a
>blur - at least, that is my theory.
has anybody written anything that exploits this blurriness in certain =
chords?
sort of a piece with multiple interpretations where the melodic flow that=
is
heard depends on the "gestalt" of the listener's particular history?
eric
-------------------
beware of asterisks
Matthew H. Fields
In article <3473872F...@erols.com>,
t.r.mcloughlin <tmcl...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> c'' c'' c'' c''
> g' f' vs. g' g'
> e' f' e' g'
> b c' b c'
>
>I like the first better, too. And the reason is this: In the second,
>the "dissonance differential" is too great. The 8/5 is *too* consonant
>to support the amount of dissonance in the 9/6/4.
I guess I must be a baroque kinda guy, what comes to mind is
c" d" b'
g' a' b'e'
e' f' e'b
b a g#
My ear really wants that b to descend.
M. Schulter
t.r.mcloughlin <tmcl...@erols.com> wrote:
: Contrasting
: c'' c'' c'' c''
: g' f' vs. g' g'
: e' f' e' g'
: b c' b c'
: I like the first better, too. And the reason is this: In the second,
: the "dissonance differential" is too great. The 8/5 is *too* consonant
: to support the amount of dissonance in the 9/6/4.
: Talk about context.
That's fascinating, and raises another aspect of "context": the sense of
"what I've seen done so far" (in a given style).
Maybe one of the reasons I didn't consider your second (and less
preferred) resolution is that I'm not really used to the idea of the two
lower voices ascending in that fashion while the two upper voices both
remain stationary. I'm not saying that "it's not done," only, "it's not
something that I would immediately think of doing."
BTW, maybe one's reactions to this 9/6/4 depend in part -- as has been
suggested earlier in this thread -- about how one feels about fourths. I
tend to take fourths as concords in either a 13th-century or 20th-century
context, so we have (m9 + 4 + 4 + m6 + m6 + m3). The fourths make things
"comprehensible" for me.
Before coming across your post, I came up with two other alternatives:
c'' d'' c'' d''
g' a' g' a'
e' d' e' d'
b a b d'
Curiously, I find either acceptable. In the first case, we have the outer
m9 resolve by conjunct contrary motion to an 11th -- a bit less concordant
than a fourth, if we are to trust both medieval and modern acoustical
theory, but not unpleasant. I like the idea of two "streams" of fourths
moving in contrary motion, which sort of vindicates the coherence of the
original sonority.
The other alternative could be viewed as a sort of variation on a more
"standard" cadence with the same note-spelling, although the flavor is
rather different and I wouldn't want to imply any rule of inversional
equivalence or the like:
c'' d''
b' a'
g' a'
e' d'
The neat thing here is that each unstable interval -- all four of them --
resolves by conjunct contrary motion. Instead of m9, we have m2, which
smoothly expands to the upper fourth of our 8/5.
Anyway, exploring these choices is a great resource for improvisation as
well as composition or listening.
: trm
Tore Lund
t.r.mcloughlin wrote:
>
> They must not get "The Young and the Restless" in Norway.
It rings a bell, but that's all...
> My hypothesis would be that we have a tendency to try to hear
> the lowest note as the root, and in the absence of other cues that
> make it clear that we are hearing an inversion, we get stuck between
> solutions. Try contrasting B-D#-F#-C and B-E-G-C.
Agreed. Only, as I said in another post, I think that fourth in the
bass is the more important factor, and that it makes us get stuck
between E and C as possible roots.
Pathetic question: does anyone know of a theory that explores these
matters systematically? As far as I know, the last person who made a
real attempt was Hindemith, and he blew it. Looks like the subject of
consonance and dissonance has more or less been laid to rest after so
many centuries of barking up the wrong trees.
Samuel Vriezen
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 22:00:38 +0100, Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
>Just want to add that to me, B C and C B are equally dissonant as long
>as I hear them *out of context*. (And I doubt that fractions have
>anything to do with it.)
Goes to show the influence of listening background. I too doubt that
fractions have much to do with it, but then, you never know... it is
interesting that in my experience with microtones, the neutral third
(between major and minor) does not sound dissonant, even if the
closest fraction approximating it would be something like 39:32. Well
aaargh again I think.
Samuel
Samuel Vriezen
What an interesting thread this is developping into!
trm:
>: c'' c'' c'' c''
>: g' f' vs. g' g'
>: e' f' e' g'
>: b c' b c'
>
>: I like the first better, too. And the reason is this: In the second,
>: the "dissonance differential" is too great. The 8/5 is *too* consonant
>: to support the amount of dissonance in the 9/6/4.
>
>: Talk about context.
Also, the fact that all voices move by seconds in the first has to do
with it. In this context, the e-g leap which brutally collapses a
third into a unison sounds silly to me.
Margo:
>Before coming across your post, I came up with two other alternatives:
>
>c'' d'' c'' d''
>g' a' g' a'
>e' d' e' d'
>b a b d'
>
>Curiously, I find either acceptable. In the first case, we have the outer
>m9 resolve by conjunct contrary motion to an 11th -- a bit less concordant
>than a fourth, if we are to trust both medieval and modern acoustical
>theory, but not unpleasant. I like the idea of two "streams" of fourths
>moving in contrary motion, which sort of vindicates the coherence of the
>original sonority.
>
>The other alternative could be viewed as a sort of variation on a more
>"standard" cadence with the same note-spelling, although the flavor is
>rather different and I wouldn't want to imply any rule of inversional
>equivalence or the like:
>
>c'' d''
>b' a'
>g' a'
>e' d'
>
>The neat thing here is that each unstable interval -- all four of them --
>resolves by conjunct contrary motion. Instead of m9, we have m2, which
>smoothly expands to the upper fourth of our 8/5.
The major difference between example 2 and the standard cadence would
be the leap in ex 2 from the b to the d which is very much unexpected,
as the b is clearly part of a dissonance, a scalestep-motion would be
expected.
>Anyway, exploring these choices is a great resource for improvisation as
>well as composition or listening.
How true! What about: (I notate chords horizontally rather than
vertically, it is less dependant on peculiarities of the editor you
use):
b e' g' c''
bb eb' g' c''
ab eb' g' c''
| | | d''
| | | b'
f# eb' g' b'
| | | a'
etc etc etc
Oh so heartfelt and beautiful! This music really expresses emotions!
And all that just in half a minute of improvising time! :-)
Best
Samuel
M. Schulter
Samuel Vriezen <s...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
: What an interesting thread this is developping into!
Yes, and your comments add a great deal. It's fascinating to compare notes
in this way.
: Also, the fact that all voices move by seconds in the first has to do
: with it. In this context, the e-g leap which brutally collapses a
: third into a unison sounds silly to me.
A very curious coincidence. Last night I was reading in Knud Jeppesen's
_The Style of Palestrina and the Dissonance_, and came across a section at
the end where Palestrina offers the Duke of Mantua a bit of constructive
criticism on a motet. Jeppesen suggests that Palestrina, in his letter to
the Duke, might have been advising against certain progressions involving
motion into a unison.
In a 13th-century context, an oblique 3-1 resolution is quite normal in a
setting like this
g -
e-g
c -
However, for whatever reason, I agree with you in finding this kind of
oblique resolution less felicitous in a directed progression where other
parts are in motion; I would prefer 3-1 or 3-5 by contrary motion, which
is in fact the stylistic norm for the most part.
: Margo:
: >Before coming across your post, I came up with two other alternatives:
: >
: >c'' d'' c'' d''
: >g' a' g' a'
: >e' d' e' d'
: >b a b d'
[The second alternative is somewhat reminiscent of a standard
cadence:]
: >c'' d''
: >b' a'
: >g' a'
: >e' d'
: The major difference between example 2 and the standard cadence would
: be the leap in ex 2 from the b to the d which is very much unexpected,
: as the b is clearly part of a dissonance, a scalestep-motion would be
: expected.
Your comment raises a very interesting question: might the 13th century be
unusual in regularly using resolutions of intervals deemed sharply
dissonant (m2, M7, tritone) where at least one of the voices moves by a
third?
Certainly resolutions of unstable intervals by conjunct contrary motion
are the most typical pattern, but my ear is quite accustomed to these
common 13th-century patterns:
c' d' f' d'
bb c' f a b d'
a f e d f g
m2-5 m6 8 8
m2 5 A4 5
(m6-8 + m2-5) (d5-1)
The standard m2-5 progression I often describe as "near-conjunct contrary
motion." The resolution of a sonority with a tritone in which _both_
voices of this interval leap by a third is also a usual practice to me.
This may explain why I took the leap of a third in one of my resolutions
of b-e'-g'-c'' as rather routine, although not as "efficient" as a
progression where all the voices move by step. It's good to be reminded
that what my ears may accept as "usual" can be quite surprising to others.
In fact, maybe one of the benefits of this dialogue is that we may hit
upon effects which are taken for granted in one style but definitely
_unexpected_ in others, and therefore possibly useful as memorable special
effects.
: >Anyway, exploring these choices is a great resource for improvisation as
: >well as composition or listening.
: How true! What about: (I notate chords horizontally rather than
: vertically, it is less dependant on peculiarities of the editor you
: use):
: b e' g' c''
: bb eb' g' c''
: ab eb' g' c''
: | | | d''
: | | | b'
: f# eb' g' b'
: | | | a'
: etc etc etc
: Oh so heartfelt and beautiful! This music really expresses emotions!
: And all that just in half a minute of improvising time! :-)
Playing this on a melodica (maybe a very crude modern analogue of a
portative organ <grin>), what I hear is a kind of 20th-century homage to
the Renaissance suspension, or something like that. I wonder what it would
sound like on an organ with a gemshorn stop.
: Best
: Samuel
M. Schulter
Matthew H. Fields <fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
: I guess I must be a baroque kinda guy, what comes to mind is
: c" d" b'
: g' a' b'e'
: e' f' e'b
: b a g#
: My ear really wants that b to descend.
As a lover of Phrygian cadences, I won't quarrel with you.
Two possibly strange side-comments:
(1) If one omits the bass part, we get parallel 6/3's leading into a fifth
e-b -- something that would seem like usual part-writing anywhere from the
14th to the 16th century, apart from the motion of the highest voice at
the end down a third (d''-b') instead of up a step (d''-e''), which would
give us 6/3-8/5.
(2) Comment (1) leads to an open question: I do tend to associate that
downward motion of a third (d''-b'') with a Baroque Phrygian cadence, and
wonder if the thirdwise motion somehow adds a bit of affective power.
This might get us into Bernhard's "heterolepsis," maybe a different kind
of rhetorical gesture.
Anyway, it's a neat solution -- another one of Dr. Matt's delightful
prescriptions.
K C Moore
In article <650s8i$s...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
jgr...@mit.edu "Jennifer Grucza" writes:
> [ ... ] But anyway, I definitely do physically feel the tension in
> certain intervals much more than others. Of course this can also be
> exaggerated by timbre and range. But my opinion is that dissonance
> is definitely a physical thing. I guess people's responses can be
> conditioned, which explains the shifting opinions of which intervals
> are more dissonant than others, but to some extent at least, I think
> it's inherent in the acoustics and the workings of the human ear.
Acousticians and perceptual psychologists (at least, those who have
studied the matter) agree with you. If you have a university library
near you, you could read of recent work on the Helmholz theory of
consonance and dissonance. Much of it has been reported in the Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America (JASA), eg:
William A. Sethares, "Local consonance and the relationship between
timbre and scale", JASA 94, (3) Pt 1, Sept. 1993.
A Kameoka and M Kuriyagawa, "Consonance theory Part II. Consonance of
complex tones and its calculation method", JASA 45, 1460-1469 (1968).
J R Pierce, "Attaining consonance in arbitrary scales", JASA 40, 249
(1968).
F H Slaymaker, "Chords from tones havng stretched partials", JASA 47,
1469-1571 (1968).
The most recent paper which I have found, apparently on this subject
(it refers to Sethares, and I fould it in a citation index, but have
not read it yet), is by Slaymaker in JASA 95, (1994). I didn't note
the title, because this is enough info for me to find it.
The Helmholz theory goes some way to explaining such things as the
oddity of consonances on bells (which Matt Fields described in
rec.music.compose in his report of composing for carillons) and why
equal emperamnet works better on pianos than on organs.
--
Ken Moore
k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
M. Schulter
: Greg Whitman <te...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
: >Well, that's just because every note Bartok ever wrote was dissonant.
: >Except for the major sevenths and minor seconds in "Major Sevenths,
: >Minor Seconds."
: Aww, Greg, that's trolling!
Hi, there.
Yes, I'd say that Greg's comment was probably a "troll" in what I
understand as the original and best Usenet sense: the kind of "leg
pulling" that keeps up the muscular tone of discourse and pleasant
camaraderie in a newsgroup. It's unfortunate that the term has since taken
on some less savory and pleasant connotations.
Anyway, Greg, you certainly made my day.
I'm almost picturing it as a new item in the FAQ for alt.folklore.urban:
Q. Is it true that Bartok's authorship of a piece automatically reverses
the usual spectrum of consonance/dissonance, sort of like displaying a
grayscale graphic in reverse video or adding the command '{1 exch sub}
settransfer' to a PostScript file?
As it happens, one of my favorite Bartok pieces is "Fourths" -- might
someone argue that the fourths in this piece are indeed concordant, but
_less_ concordant than the minor sevenths <grin>?
John Ladasky
In article <3472BB...@online.no>, Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
[snip]
>Incidentally, is anyone able to explain why C E G B is well-defined
>whereas B E G C is not? I am not aware of any theory of dissonance that
>is even close to explaining such questions.
Hindemith took a crack at this almost a century ago. He had some
strange ideas -- such as the analysis of "undertones," which are integral
*divisions* of the frequencies involved. Unlike overtones, which are
integral *multiples* of the notes, there is no evidence for the audibility
of undertones except in very unusual circumstances (such as distortion in
an amplifier). Still, I think Hindemith's other basic idea, that of look-
ing at the overtones of the notes and seeing where they coincide and where
they clash, has merit, and should be investigated further. Hindemith
placed chords in one of six dissonance classes based on the intervals that
they contained, and then subdivided these classes based on inversions --
was the bass tone the root or not? Again, this is crude, but to my ears
it is a step in the right direction. Hindemith's system wouldn't distin-
guish between Tore Lund's B E G C and the more stable B C E G.
Some more recent studies of two-note chords were performed by, I
think, Diana Deutsch and colleagues. I saw this data about ten years ago
in an electronic music class which included a section on psychoacoustics.
The test subjects were non-musicians. They auditioned pairs of tones
simultaneously and were ask to rate the sound from "smooth" to "rough."
The experiments showed that the timbres the relative pitches, and the *ab-
solute* pitches mattered.
With pure sine waves, listeners rated two pitches within about
10 Hz of each other as "smooth," pitches from 10-20 Hz apart as "rough",
and all other intervals uniform, and somewhere in between. Note that,
around middle C, 256 Hz, 20 Hz is somewhat smaller than a minor second --
but two octaves down, it's a minor third. In a previous thread, someone
asked why chords played in the low register of the piano sound "muddier"
than chords in higher registers. The crowding of the intervals into the
critical 10-20 Hz audio band was the reason I gave.
Now if the tones were changed from sine waves to more complex
waves with integer overtones, suddenly peaks and valleys of consonance
and dissonance appeared. So in addition to the peak around the unison,
significant secondary peaks appeared at 3:2 (perfect fifth), 4:3 (perfect
fourth), 5:4 (major third), etc. Each of these peaks had a 10 Hz crit-
ical band around it, just like the unison band in the sine-wave experiment.
This might all be explained by frequencies beating against each
other, whether fundamentals or overtones. When two frequencies are within
10 Hz of each other, they are perceived as a single note and they rein-
force the sense of smoothness. From 10-20 Hz, the beating between the
two frequencies sounds rough. Above 20 Hz, the ear can clearly tell that
two separate frequencies are present and does not attempt to compare them.
My information is somewhat dated. Perhaps more experiments have
been done since the ones I mentioned here. I hope so. But in the end,
it would probably tell us much more about homophonic music than polyphon-
ic music. And this has always been a weakness of harmonic analysis.
--
Rainforest laid low.
"Wake up and smell the ozone,"
Says man with chainsaw. - John Ladasky
Jennifer Grucza
Well it may not be relevant at all to the discussion, but I think it's
interesting that on several occations pieces of music have given me
actual headaches because they were so dissonant to my ears at the
time. For example, I have a CD of all the Hindemith viola sonatas
which would, for the longest time, give me a headache whenever I
played it. But I guess my ears have adapted, because they don't seem
that dissonant anymore, and they don't cause physical pain anymore.
(Which is good considering how important Hindemith is to viola
repertoire.) I guess this is due to a general broadening of what I've
listened to and played in the last couple of years (I love Bartok).
But anyway, I definitely do physically feel the tension in certain
intervals much more than others. Of course this can also be
exaggerated by timbre and range. But my opinion is that dissonance is
definitely a physical thing. I guess people's responses can be
conditioned, which explains the shifting opinions of which intervals
are more dissonant than others, but to some extent at least, I think
it's inherent in the acoustics and the workings of the human ear.
Jennifer
Dave Baird
>What I have done, for example, in a piece I just finished today, is to
>construct a phrase in such a manner so that when you reach the end of it,
>you feel closure, but with a chord that in tonal music would be considered
>VERY dissonant. ...
>
>I'm not sure if that's what you mean when you say I'm becoming accustomed to
>the context and not the actual dissonance.
That's exactly what I would call it. Any dissonance will sound more
consonant when compared to a second sound that is more dissonant.
--------------------------
David Olen Baird, Composer
Email: mailto:davb...@fileshop.com
Home Page: http://www.tfs.net/~davbaird/
KC CONNECTIONS - Concert of New Music for Piccolo
http://www.tfs.net/~davbaird/sfinney.html
Dave Baird
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:50:34 -0500, pub...@webtv.net (Publicity
Machine) wrote:
>People who study theory are wasting
>their time...the essential element of
>music is the unknown...tossing great
>lyrics onto beds of sound that feel
>wonderful...
>
>if you want Theory become a mathematicaltician
What if you want to talk to somebody else (a musician) about your
"beds of sound"? Theory is mighty handy if you want to communicate
non-musically about music.
Goddess in Training
John Ladasky (jlad...@cmgm.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: In article <3472BB...@online.no>, Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
: Hindemith took a crack at this almost a century ago. He had some
: strange ideas -- such as the analysis of "undertones," which are integral
: *divisions* of the frequencies involved. Unlike overtones, which are
: integral *multiples* of the notes, there is no evidence for the audibility
: of undertones except in very unusual circumstances (such as distortion in
: an amplifier).
Undertones weren't unique to Hindemith. Rameau discussed them (though I
am not sure whether he was the first to do so), and I think that Riemann
did as well (but I can't remember for sure right now). There's no
physical evidence for them, unlike the overtone series, and I doubt that
many take them seriously any more.
--'--,-{@ --,--'-{@ --'--,-{@
Renee Rosen "Transylvanian Concubine,
lil...@cjnetworks.com You know what flows here like wine.
Goddess in Training Stay here with us, it's just time.
Astrud and Kitto on irc Transylvanian Concubine."
http://www.cjnetworks.com/~lilitu --Rasputina
@}-,--'-- @}-'--,-- @}-,--'--
Eric Hill
On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:00:19 GMT, davb...@fileshop.com (Dave Baird) wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 21:21:26 GMT, eh...@best.com* (Eric Hill) wrote:
>
>>has anybody written anything that exploits this blurriness in certain chords?
>>sort of a piece with multiple interpretations where the melodic flow that is
>>heard depends on the "gestalt" of the listener's particular history?
>
>a shared musical culture that our "gestalts" are congruent in a
>significant way.
actually, my use of "gestalt" was a reference to a previous poster's use of
the word in a particular context where a dissonant chord can have notes that
seem to be leading to other notes - where the listener decides where (or if)
the note is leading. reich's "music for 18..." as well as other minimalist
bits like "in c" are good examples of what i was asking for, since such chords
are just hammered on endlessly while my ears pick out little melodies due, i
assume, to this "leading" effect. was anyone doing this kind of thing before
WWII?
M. Schulter
Dave Baird <davb...@fileshop.com> wrote:
: That's exactly what I would call it. Any dissonance will sound more
: consonant when compared to a second sound that is more dissonant.
Hi, there.
One example this brings to mind is the "consonant fourth" in a
16th-century context. For example:
f'-e' -d'
d' c#'-d'
a -d
6 -5
4 -M3
Although a fourth above the lowest part is generally treated as a
dissonance, in this situation it often gets treated more freely, perhaps
because it seems "more concordant" by comparison to the following 5/4
suspension. Here I've deliberately picked the m6/4 form (with fourth below
and m3 above) which even an advocate of the fourth such as Zarlino agrees
is not that pleasing in itself. (He feels that M6/4 might well be treated
as a concord, since it sounds well and follows the order of the "sonorous
numbers.")
BTW, the fourth is a good example of how theorists even in the same
general period can differ radically about the consonance/dissonance of a
given interval. Zarlino asserts that anyone listening to a stringed
instrument tuned properly in fourths will immediately grant that the
fourth is indeed a perfect consonance in the same class as the fifth,
while Morley asserts with equal confidence that this interval "mightily
offends the ear."
Anyway, I wonder if other people might have views on the 16th-century
"consonant fourth" idiom.
Christian Bisson
Dave Baird wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:50:34 -0500, pub...@webtv.net (Publicity
> Machine) wrote:
>
> >People who study theory are wasting
> >their time...the essential element of
> >music is the unknown...tossing great
> >lyrics onto beds of sound that feel
> >wonderful...
> >
> >if you want Theory become a mathematicaltician
I'm starting to be tired of those who say: "Theory sucks, I just play what sounds
good." First of all, they THINK it sounds good, and second, normally they're so
closed-minded that they don't see how clearer it would be with theory. But I don't
wanna say that all those who don't like theory are like that, if I did so I would be
as close-minded as some of them. I just saying that somebody who says that theory is
a waste of time should either try it or shut their mouth and continue to "toss great
lyrics onto bods of sound". Just my humble opinion.
Martin
chris...@videotron.ca
Dave Baird
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 21:21:26 GMT, eh...@best.com* (Eric Hill) wrote:
>has anybody written anything that exploits this blurriness in certain chords?
>sort of a piece with multiple interpretations where the melodic flow that is
>heard depends on the "gestalt" of the listener's particular history?
I'm of the mind that all music is this way. It's only because we have
a shared musical culture that our "gestalts" are congruent in a
significant way.
Edargorter
Tore wrote:
"Incidentally, is anyone able to explain why C E G B is well-defined
whereas B E G C is not? I am not aware of any theory of dissonance that
is even close to explaining such questions.
Tore"
I'm not sure I hear BEGC as being less well-defined than CEGB. Just playing an
isolated chord a few times is where the problem lies. I think context is the
answer to whether something sounds dissonant or not. These both sound fine to
me. Out of context, BEGC sounds minor and CEGB sounds major, and can sound that
way in context, too. But either chord can be made to sound major or minor,
depending on what comes before and after the chord in the context of the music.
Rich
Tore Lund
Context is a major "problem" here, that's why I stressed that we should
hear these chords out of context. However, even in that case it appears
that people hear them differently.
We probably play them on different instruments too. I tried them out on
my guitar. However, I just bought a synthesizer, and playing the chords
on that instrument with various voices results in various experiences of
dissonance/cacophony/directedness. At least, this may explain some of
the divergence in people's estimate of these chords.
Then how does the timbre affect our evaluation? This is indeed a very
slippery subject...
Tore
--
--
Tore Lund <tl...@online.no>
Charles R. Galbach
Learning to play music is very much like learning a new language. My
paternal grandmother had an "ear" for language. In fact, she eventually
learned to speak and understand seven different languages, to some
degree, without formal training. All the anti-music-theory types would,
of course, look at her with admiration. See, that proves that you don't
need formal training. Well, it proves nothing of the sort.
This same grandmother was actually relegated to very simple
communication with mostly store owners, who, I'm sure stroked her ego
about her language skills, in order to make a sale. Would the German
store owner have accepted her language skills enough to engage her in a
serious discussion about anything at all? I don't think so. Likewise the
Jewish butcher who exchanged small talk with her in Yiddish. Nor the
Slovak, Polish, Hungarian or Russian merchants or neighbors with whom
she also exchanged small talk. I remember her english being pretty
simplistic.
Does anyone at all understand the point of this? Without formal
training, including grammar (theory), my grandmother could never rise
above just small talk. Forget writing the great American, German,
Yiddish, etc., novel, or even being taken very seriously by real members
of these language groups. Musicians who reject the "grammar" of music
are likewise stuck with the equivalent of small talk. They think they
are doing fine, just like my grandmother. Some even get some paying work
plying their skills. But their potential audience, income and musical
growth tend to be severely limited. Since they sometimes realize and
reject the effort required to correct their lack of knowledge, they bray
against the entire idea of musical knowledge.
My barber, who knows I teach at a small college, told me one day that he
played the clarinet, played in a small group for a few weddings a couple
of years before, considered himself pretty good and loved to play. So, I
suggested he come audition for a community member spot in our college
wind symphony. He said he couldn't read music and felt he was too old to
learn. So, that was the end of that. Another small talk saga - literally
and figuratively.
I have a quite poor attitude toward intentional ignorance, for which I
decline to apologize.
Chuck
Tore Lund
Charles R. Galbach wrote:
>
> Well Tore, I believe that "theory" permeates music of all types, whether
> the practitioners like it or not.
>
> [snip rest of excellent post]
I agree completely. You are not here arguing against anything that I
said. I tried to discuss what could be done to change this situation.
For instance, I suspect that many jazz and pop musicians feel they would
be flies in the ointment in classical music theory classes, which is
what is normally available. I know that I felt alienated when I picked
up theory books in my youth and found rules on voice leading and harmony
that had not the remotest application to the music I liked. This is
something that could be remedied if music departments wanted to.
Todd Michel McComb
In article <347701...@online.no>, Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
>I know that I felt alienated when I picked up theory books in my
>youth and found rules on voice leading and harmony that had not
>the remotest application to the music I liked. This is something
>that could be remedied if music departments wanted to.
I think it is quite rare for theory to be truly up-to-date. That
is simply not its nature. One does not have to play classical
music all that close to the present before the theory begins to
have major gaps. In history, there are few points when theory
seems to have caught up... perhaps in the days of Monteverdi, and
somewhat less likely De Vitry.
Todd McComb
mcc...@best.com
Tore Lund
M. Schulter wrote:
>
> [snip]
> BTW, the fourth is a good example of how theorists even in the same
> general period can differ radically about the consonance/dissonance of a
> given interval. Zarlino asserts that anyone listening to a stringed
> instrument tuned properly in fourths will immediately grant that the
> fourth is indeed a perfect consonance in the same class as the fifth,
> while Morley asserts with equal confidence that this interval "mightily
> offends the ear."
>
> Anyway, I wonder if other people might have views on the 16th-century
> "consonant fourth" idiom.
I don't know a thing about 16th-century music. But I'd like to mention
that I have felt similar equivocation about the fourth in the music of
today. When I was a kid, I found the bare perfect fourth a very ugly
and empty interval. However, after exposure to rock and folk where this
interval abounds, my perception of it changed. The fourth became a full
and warm *consonance* like the major third.
I have wondered about the reasons for these varying assessments of the
fourth. Let's consider the first few partials:
c c1 g1 c2 e2 g2
f f1 c2 f2 a2
I suspect that the culprit is the interval f1-g1, because this is the
only narrow interval that is clearly audible on virtually all
instruments in all registers. Whether you hear this interval as
"dissonance" or as "spice" might help explain the widely diverging
opinions on the fourth. In any case, we clearly need a theory that
allows for different interpretations of intervals. Most theories of
consonance and dissonance are rather pathetic in this regard, in that
they try to lay down rules that are supposed to hold good for all times
and places.
Besides this issue of the fourth, there are quite a few points of
contact between late medieval music and certain styles of today. Since
you are obviously an expert, I wonder if you would like to ponder a
quiz. Consider this cadence:
d1 (d1 held until b) b
g a g f# g a g f# e
time values 2 1 1 2 4 2 2 2 4
Supposing that this is late medieval/renaissance music (which it isn't),
how would you classify it?
Brian Schend
The performer's job is to study the theory of the past.
The composer's job is to invent the theory of the future.
But the composer can't do that without knowing the past.
Brian Schend /~~\------
derl...@geocities.com \O--|:----
http://www.angelfire.com/wa/derludwig ----|-----
"The bird that would soar above the ---/------
level plain of tradition and --/-------
prejudice must have strong wings. It
is a sad spectacle to see the
weaklings bruised, exhausted,
fluttering back to earth."
- Kate Chopin
Tore Lund
Charles R. Galbach wrote:
>
> [snip grandmother who knew seven languages]
>
> I have a quite poor attitude toward intentional ignorance, for which I
> decline to apologize.
Let me mention another case of intentional ignorance. Some weeks ago
there was a thread on rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic about fixing bad
intonation on guitars. I chimed in with some elementary physics, and
for some reason this provoked strong reactions in certain readers, who
said, in effect, "What has theory got to do with this issue?" When I
hear comments like that I wonder how come we ever managed to emerge from
the jungle.
In physics, languages and classical music, theory is readily available.
But this is not the case for all forms of music. If you play a type of
music for which no theory and no sheet music exists, learning theory may
seem like an uphill battle with no end in sight. And the availability
of tape recorders everywhere exacerbates this problem. Even if it is
tempting to blame such musicians for "intentional ignorance", my point
is that this in itself is unlikely to improve the situation. It will
take some real ingenuity to bring literacy to the nonacademic forms of
music, which are, for most intents and purposes, the music of our times.
Classically trained musicians are not always fair when they denounce the
illiteracy of others. They learn music theory at their leisure
throughout many childhood and college years, and they are hardly aware
of the extent of the conditioning they have been through. Nor are they
particularly theoretical. Ask them to learn some new subject, and you
will encounter the well-known reluctance to learning in general.
Having said this, it *is* rather frustrating to meet rock musicians who
don't even want to know what the notes are *called*. But the deeper
reason is that most people are not very theoretical, and the only cure
that I can see is systematic and *relevant* learning of theory in school
etc. Self-study at a mature level will forever be an option for a
select few only.
Matthew H. Fields
In article <6576de$7o$1...@mccomb.vip.best.com>,
In the days of Monteverdi theory had caught up with Palestrina.
Who had a coherent theory for Rore or, for that matter, for Monteverdi?
--
Matt Fields, A.Mus.D. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
My Java toy, JARS Top 1%: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/TTTB
Charles R. Galbach
Well Tore, I believe that "theory" permeates music of all types, whether
the practitioners like it or not. My grandmother, of whom I spoke,
intuitively grasped little rules in the process of "picking up" a
language. Likewise, all forms of music, popular or "classical" observe
rules. In fact, popular and classical music are really quite inseparable
in the realm of rule observation. If anything, classical music is the
more creative, having much greater complexity to the rules, including
much greater complexity in the rules broken.
Even in cases of anti-social music, the practioners perceive sufficient
standard music structure, in order to know what to avoid. And in the
mainstream pop music, the rules abound. They tend to be narrower than in
other forms of music, but they are broken even less often. The clarinet
playing barber I mentioned earlier, played strictly by ear. Don't think
for a minute that he didn't intuitively grasp numerous simple rules in
the process. Certainly he couldn't grasp the more complex rules, lacking
the formal language and progressive learning to incorporate them. And it
would take him a long time, and many worn out tapes, to learn any
complex piece of music, if he were so inclined; mainly, of course,
because the complexity of the rules for such music are either less
intuitive, or require much more foundation.
My music background has been terribly fragmented. With undergraduate and
graduate work in music, and a bit of college level teaching, I went off
to become a military pilot and then a computer software engineer. Only
in the past ten years have I gradually returned to my music roots. But,
I've long appreciated jazz, spending many saturday nights at the
Crawford Grill in Pittsburgh, while in college, listening to the likes
of JJ Johnson, Kay Winding, Lionel Hampton, etc. Until recently,
however, I never gave much thought to the structure of jazz. In the past
couple years, I've accumulated some literature on the subject, and my
mind is boggled by, not how much structure exists, but how much and how
well it has been documented.
I've met a few jazz and pop music practioners who, while formally
decrying music theory, spend many, many listening hours trying to grasp
rules that would be simple if they knew a little music theory. That, is
the unfortunate result of intentional ignorance. If these people were
electricians, they would electocute themselves trying to learn their
trade by "feel". Music is less deadly, so they remain ignorant for a
much longer time, struggling to learn the hard way, instead of the
really much easier way. It's the "ugly American" approach to music. The
ugly American expects others to understand them, while rejecting any
attempt to learn the other's language or culture.
Many musicians, on all sides of all the music fences, do the exact same
thing. I knew some very talented and knowledgeable classically trained
college professors, who rejected the repetitious nature of pop music,
and then cried in their beer over how poor they were. They never
realized they had the skills and knowledge to out pop the pop
practioners. I also knew a couple who made lots of money on pop music,
so they could spend lots of time on the complex music they really
enjoyed.
Now that I've chased some readers away and put the remainder to sleep,
have a nice day,
Chuck
Dave Baird
On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 18:16:26 GMT, eh...@best.com* (Eric Hill) wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:00:19 GMT, davb...@fileshop.com (Dave Baird) wrote:
>>On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 21:21:26 GMT, eh...@best.com* (Eric Hill) wrote:
>>
>>>has anybody written anything that exploits this blurriness in certain chords?
>>>sort of a piece with multiple interpretations where the melodic flow that is
>>>heard depends on the "gestalt" of the listener's particular history?
>>
>>I'm of the mind that all music is this way. It's only because we have
>>a shared musical culture that our "gestalts" are congruent in a
>>significant way.
>
>actually, my use of "gestalt" was a reference to a previous poster's use of
>the word in a particular context where a dissonant chord can have notes that
>seem to be leading to other notes - where the listener decides where (or if)
>the note is leading.
This is precisely the meaning that I intended. What I am saying is
that the attentive listener always has expectations where the note is
leading. Exactly where we decide the note is leading is determined by
our musical experience, which I called the musical culture. If the
note leads to where the expectation lies, then the listener has a kind
of cognitive consonance. If the note leads to an unexpected place,
then there is a bit of cognitive dissonance, so to speak.
As you listen and become familiar with a piece of music, your
expectations will change. I remember hearing a piece twice recently
(I think it was some Jazz piano). The first time I was quite smitten
by the unusual progressions used in the work. I was quite off-balance
with it in a very delightful way. The next time I heard it, the
experience was quite different. Somehow, I was able to do the
analysis, and could tell more exactly where it was going and where it
was from.
What makes a lot of music quite interesting is the duality that some
of it has. In other words two listeners can have different
experiences (or the same listener can have different experiences on
different listenings). I'm refering to modulations primarily, where
the music can have two interpretations, depending on where we perceive
the tonic. Sometimes, you can perceive the tonic early, and sometimes
later.
Matthew H. Fields
A tag line to save and add to your quotes file:
"If [intentionally ignorant musicians] were electricians, they would
electocute themselves trying to learn their trade by 'feel'."
--Charles R. Galbach
---oooh, but it would hurt so good (?).
--
Matt Fields, A.Mus.D. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
My Java toy, JARS Top 1%: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/TTTB
CONCERT, BACH AND INTERNET: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/concert.html
ab...@127.0.0.1 - ro...@127.0.0.1 - postm...@127.0.0.1 rhu...@fcc.gov jqu...@fcc.gov sn...@fcc.gov rch...@fcc.gov assistan...@fbi.gov dom...@cyberpromo.com
Todd Michel McComb
In article <3476AD...@online.no>, Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
> d1 (d1 held until b) b
> g a g f# g a g f# e
>time values 2 1 1 2 4 2 2 2 4
>
>Supposing that this is late medieval/renaissance music (which it isn't),
>how would you classify it?
Margo has a knack for finding a way to make something into something
else, so maybe she will, but that's so unlike any late medieval/renaissance
piece that I can't imagine classifying it on those terms. It would have
to be its own category.
Todd McComb
mcc...@best.com
Todd Michel McComb
In article <6577oj$n51$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
It's debatable, so I'd never give the example without the "perhaps" but
Monteverdi & his brother had a lot to say about Rore, and quite a bit
to say about Monteverdi too.
Todd McComb
mcc...@best.com
M. Schulter
Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
: I have wondered about the reasons for these varying assessments of the
: fourth. Let's consider the first few partials:
: c c1 g1 c2 e2 g2
: f f1 c2 f2 a2
: I suspect that the culprit is the interval f1-g1, because this is the
: only narrow interval that is clearly audible on virtually all
: instruments in all registers. Whether you hear this interval as
: "dissonance" or as "spice" might help explain the widely diverging
: opinions on the fourth. In any case, we clearly need a theory that
: allows for different interpretations of intervals. Most theories of
: consonance and dissonance are rather pathetic in this regard, in that
: they try to lay down rules that are supposed to hold good for all times
: and places.
This statement is very interesting, because indeed in the 13th century not
only the simple fourth or 8/4 but also 5/4 -- which makes the "spice" of
the major second relationship explicit (e.g. c-f-g) -- can be relatively
concordant.
My first impression of the fourth was one of absolute delight; I found out
what a vertical fourth was as the result of taking a high school course in
music appreciation (an historical survey), getting interested in madrigal
singing, and learning something about the intervals as a preparation for
sight singing. Playing parallel fourths on the piano was a thing of beauty
-- except for the tritone, to which my first reaction was to ask if the
piano was out of tune!
Tore Lund
Good. The point is that, torn from its context as I have presented it,
this phrase does *not* remind me of the music where it is embedded.
That's why I wonder how others would classify it.
Matthew H. Fields
In article <6579d8$bv$1...@mccomb.vip.best.com>,
All I've seen was polemic on the permissability of this music, the
doctrine of the text as master to the music rather than vice versa,
and the notion of repeated 16th notes in the violin as a musical
expression of battering.
Hmmm.
M. Schulter
: > d1 (d1 held until b) b
: > g a g f# g a g f# e
: >time values 2 1 1 2 4 2 2 2 4
: >
: >Supposing that this is late medieval/renaissance music (which it isn't),
: >how would you classify it?
Hi, there. Before I attempt to analyze this, may I ask two questions just
to be sure that I'm reading the intervals and time values correctly.
For the moment, I'll assume that this is indeed an _upper_ pedal point
with the fifth g-d' as the first interval, and that the "time values" are
units of duration: that is, "2" is twice as long as "1" and so forth.
: Margo has a knack for finding a way to make something into something
: else, so maybe she will, but that's so unlike any late medieval/renaissance
: piece that I can't imagine classifying it on those terms. It would have
: to be its own category.
Your reaction, Todd, is like mine. With a single sonority like b-e'-g'-c''
or d-g-e', it's not too hard to come up with a resolution according to
13th-century rules, but this example doesn't fit any medieval style of
which I'm aware. I was trying to picture it as a portion of a Leonin
organum (acctually c. 1170 or so) where the duplum has crossed below the
tenor (not uncommon), but it just doesn't fit, although any of the
individual intervals might occur. This remains true when I try a rendition
in something like the third and fifth rhythmic modes in triple meter to
make it more like Notre Dame style -- although people have argued a great
deal about the intended rhythm in Leonin's sustained-tone passages.
Of course, Tore, the other side of this is to say that you've written
something new and interesting; I've enjoyed playing it and discovering its
newness.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
msch...@value.net
M. Schulter
Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
: I think it is quite rare for theory to be truly up-to-date. That
: is simply not its nature. One does not have to play classical
: music all that close to the present before the theory begins to
: have major gaps. In history, there are few points when theory
: seems to have caught up... perhaps in the days of Monteverdi, and
: somewhat less likely De Vitry.
Hi, there.
In regard to de Vitry, I might add that the early 14th century is
interesting because it marks very significant changes in harmonic and
rhythmic theory and practice which were being documented pretty much
contemporaneously.
Also, very interestingly, the period around 1300 also marks a point where
advocates and analysts of the traditional style -- the music of the 13th
century -- wrote down some of the concepts that composers had doubtless
been aware of since the time of Perotin, such as a _three-voice_ unit of
complete harmony (outer octave, lower fifth, and upper fourth).
Curiously, Jacobus of LIege wrote his monumental _Speculum musicae_, the
most comprehensive source we have on 13th-century theory, around 1325, and
in good part as a reaction to the "moderns."
Could this suggest that maybe one creative irritant for theorists is
having to confront novel practices that force one to reaffirm (and
clarify) otherwise "unwritten" assumptions?
M. Schulter
: Matthew H. Fields <fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
: >Who had a coherent theory for Rore or, for that matter, for Monteverdi?
: It's debatable, so I'd never give the example without the "perhaps" but
: Monteverdi & his brother had a lot to say about Rore, and quite a bit
: to say about Monteverdi too.
Quite true, although I recall that Monterverdi was planning on writing a
definitive work about his "Second Practice" but only got around to
publishing what might be taken as small extracts from such a treatise, for
example his theory of three affective styles (agitated or _concitato_,
moderate, and sad, if I recall correctly). Maybe works such as his Eighth
Book of Madrigals (1638) speak for themselves about his late style.
Around 1655, Bernhard's treatise does codify many of the "rhetoric
figures" of the "theatrical style," with Monteverdi recommended as a
model.
Of course, the very contemporaneous debate leading up to and following the
publication of Monteverdi's Fourth (1603) and Fifth (1605) Books of
Madrigals, with Artusi as the famous critic,, is a case of practice and
theory very energetically interacting, to say the least.
Also, this topic might lead into a discussion of Vicenzo Galilei, who
during the 1580's was quite a gadfly in attacking Zarlino and other
authorities as obscurantists, and at the same time developing an alternate
theory of harmony and counterpoint which in _some_ ways anticipates
Monteverdi's later practice.
I'm not sure if any of these observations might lead to further
discussion.
Todd Michel McComb
In article <657cfi$vt$1...@vnetnews.value.net>,
M. Schulter <msch...@value.net> wrote:
>My first impression of the fourth was one of absolute delight; I found out
>what a vertical fourth was as the result of taking a high school course in
>music appreciation (an historical survey), getting interested in madrigal
>singing, and learning something about the intervals as a preparation for
>sight singing. Playing parallel fourths on the piano was a thing of beauty
>-- except for the tritone, to which my first reaction was to ask if the
>piano was out of tune!
It's interesting to me to read such reactions so often here. My
early experience is completely different... I don't honestly hear
any isolated interval or chord as inherently more or less "dissonant"
than another, just as "different", and that includes clusters or
about anything else which can be built from the chromatic scale.
To find something with a "physical dissonance reaction" I have to
turn to microtonal clashes, or mundanely to the brakes on the city
busses or the like. On the other hand, something which does not
fit any "sensible" system of tuning, such as a house piano sitting
unattended for a few years, makes my skin crawl. Yet I haven't
found adapting to other "real" tuning systems the least bit difficult.
I guess I have Ives-ian ears of a sort, and I keenly perceive my
associations with any chord or interval as learned and style-dependent.
This is a "facility" of sorts which has proven useful in some ways,
but leaves me the odd man out in most discussions.
Todd McComb
mcc...@best.com
Todd Michel McComb
In article <657f0i$vt$3...@vnetnews.value.net>,
M. Schulter <msch...@value.net> wrote:
>Could this suggest that maybe one creative irritant for theorists is
>having to confront novel practices that force one to reaffirm (and
>clarify) otherwise "unwritten" assumptions?
I agree that that has been a definite factor. I guess one thing I
find interesting about the interaction c.Monteverdi is that the theory
itself became so modernist in many cases.
Todd McComb
mcc...@best.com
Todd Michel McComb
In article <657dqo$s4e$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
>doctrine of the text as master to the music rather than vice versa,
>and the notion of repeated 16th notes in the violin as a musical
>expression of battering.
I think you're missing out on one of the more interesting historical
interactions between theory & practice then... Margo has already
cited some things, and she always seems to have the various sources
much more clearly in mind.
I think one would be hard-pressed to find a composer of such central
historical significance so theoretically articulate on both his
composed music and his objective, even if there are sizeable gaps.
I find the whole phenomenon quite uncharacteristic, which is why
I usually bring it up. Whether there are any real conclusions to
be drawn, I don't know.
Todd McComb
mcc...@best.com
M. Schulter
And here the striking thing, as I will not be the first to point out, is
that Monteverdi takes the best of the new and the old, and creates his own
synthesis.
Thus unlike Artusi, and like Vincenzo Galilei, he is ready to make radical
experiments with harmony and counterpoint, including seventh combinations
with the tritone of a kind endorsed in Galilei's counterpoint treatise (c.
1588). There's the interesting question of why Artusi chose to attack
Monteverdi rather than Gesualdo, say, who makes similar experiments --
could it be that the Prince's rank discouraged such a tact?
At the same time -- like Artusi and indeed Zarlino, but unlike Galilei --
he is also ready to take full advantage of the expressive devices of the
16th century, including clear choral declamation and contrapuntal
techniques which he has indeed mastered consummately. His emphasis on the
words as "mistress" is not for lack of skill with the music, to make one
of the understatements of the millenium.
Personally, I find that Monteverdi's continuity with de Rore and Wert is
something I can hear with my ears as well as read in his manifestos. In
some ways, I suspect that Monteverdi and his brother Guilio Cesare were
more interested in explicating artistic goals than technical details, at
least as the first priority (1607).
The interesting thing is that Madrigal Books Three, Four, and Five (1592,
1603, 1605) not only demonstrate Monteverdi's innovations, but are among
the most moving achievements in the vocal polyphony of any period. That
required, among many other things, a wonderful skill in practicing the
tradition of his predecessors as well as transforming it.
Todd Michel McComb
In article <657rhf$61g$1...@vnetnews.value.net>,
M. Schulter <msch...@value.net> wrote:
>There's the interesting question of why Artusi chose to attack
>Monteverdi rather than Gesualdo, say, who makes similar experiments
>-- could it be that the Prince's rank discouraged such a tact?
That could be one reason, but in some ways I think that Gesualdo
is less novel than Monteverdi. Although he takes voice leading
and dissonance treatment to new extremes (and his music takes on
a new rightness with very precise tuning), he doesn't challenge
polyphonic function. In short, he never separates treble from
bass, melody from accompaniment. In this regard, I think it is
easy to hear Monteverdi's 6th book as scandalous in a way that
Gesualdo never is.
Todd McComb
mcc...@best.com
Todd Michel McComb
In article <6580mk$7jr$1...@vnetnews.value.net>,
M. Schulter <msch...@value.net> wrote:
>Maybe the dissonances are the easiest to attack because the "rules" being
>broken are more clearly defined.
That's my intuition on the matter....
Todd McComb
mcc...@best.com
Todd Michel McComb
In article <657vjl$d6e$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,>Hmmm, what does "modernist" mean in this context?
How about "intentional innovation with an eye toward prescription" ....
I didn't choose me words particularly carefully in that paragraph.
Todd McComb
mcc...@best.com
Christian Bisson
Hi everybody
This is very out of the topic, so please, if anybody answers this, change the
topic to "medieval music". The reason why I didn't change it myself is because I'm
addressing this to the writers of this thread. In that discussion you talked about
medieval music and you seem to know what it is. To me medieval music is the music
you can hear in stories that occured in the Middle Ages, with castles and
princesses. I'm maybe wrong but I'm asking you: how can you compose medieval music?
What are its characteristics? Thanks in advance.
Martin
chris...@videotron.ca
John Ladasky
In article <654vo0$306$2...@vnetnews.value.net>,
M. Schulter <msch...@value.net> wrote:
[...]
>Anyway, I wonder if other people might have views on the 16th-century
>"consonant fourth" idiom.
Until I was exposed to classical (18th-19th Century) music
theory, I never heard fourths as "dissonant." In this sentence I'm
using dissonant to mean, "needing resolution." I'm not using it as
a euphemism for "cacophonous," as was mentioned by another poster: nor
as Morley apparently meant it -- "offending the ear?" Did he really
write that? It's almost enough to make one think less of his music!
I was pleased to find in Hindemith's writings that he treated each
interval and its inversion as being equal on the consonance/dissonance
scale -- a perfect fourth and a perfect fifth, to his thinking, were
the same. Aside from the minor second and major seventh, I tend to
agree.
--
Rainforest laid low.
"Wake up and smell the ozone,"
Says man with chainsaw. - John Ladasky
Matthew H. Fields
In article <657mck$l3$1...@mccomb.vip.best.com>,
>I agree that that has been a definite factor. I guess one thing I
>find interesting about the interaction c.Monteverdi is that the theory
>itself became so modernist in many cases.
Hmmm, what does "modernist" mean in this context?
--
M. Schulter
Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
: That could be one reason, but in some ways I think that Gesualdo
: is less novel than Monteverdi. Although he takes voice leading
: and dissonance treatment to new extremes (and his music takes on
: a new rightness with very precise tuning), he doesn't challenge
: polyphonic function. In short, he never separates treble from
: bass, melody from accompaniment.
This is a very interesting suggestion, and maybe invites the conclusion
that Artusi's main theoretical focus (unorthodox dissonance treatment and
"irregular" use of the modes) might not necessarily have reflected all the
factors that contributed to his negative reaction.
: In this regard, I think it is
: easy to hear Monteverdi's 6th book as scandalous in a way that
: Gesualdo never is.
This raises a fascinating question: at what point does Monteverdi's
technique become "scandalous" in comparison with Wert's, say, who wrote
lots of radically declamatory madrigals (and beautiful ones, too)
published in the 1580's. Artusi's attack was focused on works (still in
manuscript as of 1600) to be published in Books Four (1603) and Five
(1605). Incidentally, Book Five was the first to include some pieces
requiring a continuo, although Artusi's attack to my best knowledge didn't
focus on these specific pieces.
Your remarks might lead me to guess that maybe it's the totality of
Monteverdi's style that "gets to" Artusi: further extensions of Wert's
declamatory textures and techniques, plus his melodic idioms (e.g.
diminished fourth), plus the new dissonances thrown into the bargain.
Maybe the dissonances are the easiest to attack because the "rules" being
broken are more clearly defined.
And that could be why Artusi targetted something like _Cruda Amarilli_
rather than the Lament of Armida from Book Three (1593), which I would
consider a work in Wert's best tradition.
This raises another issue of Artusi's -- the proper role of
experimentation and improvisation in shaping style -- but maybe I should
save that for another post, since this one is getting a bit long for a
running dialogue.
Tore Lund
M. Schulter wrote:
>
> In article <3476AD...@online.no>, Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
> > d1 (d1 held until b) b
> > g a g f# g a g f# e
> >time values 2 1 1 2 4 2 2 2 4
> >
> >Supposing that this is late medieval/renaissance music (which it isn't),
> >how would you classify it?
>
> Hi, there. Before I attempt to analyze this, may I ask two questions just
> to be sure that I'm reading the intervals and time values correctly.
>
> For the moment, I'll assume that this is indeed an _upper_ pedal point
> with the fifth g-d' as the first interval, and that the "time values" are
> units of duration: that is, "2" is twice as long as "1" and so forth.
Right.
> Of course, Tore, the other side of this is to say that you've written
> something new and interesting;
Not at all. This comes from "When The Music's Over" by the Doors, 1967.
The phrase I quoted is played by the organ near the end of this song.
It is not very audible on the record, and I would not associate it with
rock if I did not know what it was.
The tonality here is basically a sort of dorian folk song mixed with
blues elements. In the extract quoted, the dorian element is clearly
visible, but the connection with blues music is only hinted at by the
syncopation in the middle of the phrase.
I am fascinated by your and Todd's comments. To me it sounds "old" in
some indefinite manner, and I would have expected you to place it among
folk songs or renaissance music. They say that textual analysis is a
quite precise science - your choice of words and sentence structure give
you away as surely as your fingerprints. Looks like textual analysis of
music is a quite precise science too.
> I've enjoyed playing it and discovering its newness.
There's more of it on the album "Strange Days" by The Doors. Thanks for
your comments, and Todd's too.
Matthew H. Fields
We have fairly legible sources on written music dating back to about
the year 600, and more nebulous sources dating further back into
antiquity. By convention, "medieval music" denotes all the widely
varied musics from roughly 600-1375. That's a lot of different
musical styles. The best way to discover them all is to listen to
them. If you're fortunate enough to live near a well-stocked public
library or university, ask the reference librarian for help in finding
recordings to hear.
You may be in for a surprise. Medieval music is usually not used in
movies about medieval times. At first many of the styles may sound
extremely foreign to you.
--
Matt Fields, A.Mus.D. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
My Java toy, JARS Top 1%: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/TTTB
Today's featured email addresses user...@patriot-911.net ab...@netcom.com
Samuel Vriezen
Samuel Vriezen
mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb):
>In article <347701...@online.no>, Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
>>I know that I felt alienated when I picked up theory books in my
>>youth and found rules on voice leading and harmony that had not
>>the remotest application to the music I liked. This is something
>>that could be remedied if music departments wanted to.
>
>I think it is quite rare for theory to be truly up-to-date. That
>is simply not its nature. One does not have to play classical
>music all that close to the present before the theory begins to
>have major gaps. In history, there are few points when theory
>seems to have caught up... perhaps in the days of Monteverdi, and
>somewhat less likely De Vitry.
In postwar composition, much of the theory preceded the composition,
especially with giant figures such as Stockhausen and Xenakis. Of
course, the theoretical language to use to analyze such music is not
necessarily the same as the theoretical language used to construct the
music; it does appear that the brand of Music Theory S and X engaged
in is rather unique, perhaps more comparable to the way composers use
'philosophies', such as Cage's relation to Zen and Beethoven's to the
Revolution, than to the work of Fux or Schenker.
Would there be more proper analogies to this particular post-war
theory-situation in the history of music?
Samuel
Samuel Vriezen
Hello everyone!
Tore Lund:
>: I have wondered about the reasons for these varying assessments of the
>: fourth. Let's consider the first few partials:
>
>: c c1 g1 c2 e2 g2
>: f f1 c2 f2 a2
>
>: I suspect that the culprit is the interval f1-g1, because this is the
>: only narrow interval that is clearly audible on virtually all
>: instruments in all registers. Whether you hear this interval as
>: "dissonance" or as "spice" might help explain the widely diverging
>: opinions on the fourth. In any case, we clearly need a theory that
>: allows for different interpretations of intervals. Most theories of
>: consonance and dissonance are rather pathetic in this regard, in that
>: they try to lay down rules that are supposed to hold good for all times
>: and places.
Have you read Schoenberg's Theory of Harmony? I read that book as an
attempt to interrogate or criticise tonality, in order to get to the
more general fundamental laws behind it. Schoenberg takes lots and
lots of time to justify the most simple of things, which makes the
book weird and joyful to read, almost like a novel about harmony. One
of the things he goes deeply into is the dissonance of the 6/4 chord
as opposed to the consonance of the 6/3 chord. If I rememberg rightly,
he concludes somewhat paradoxically that there is more overtone clash
in the 6/3 chord, which makes the 6/4 chord more tense as in that
chord there is a strong conflict between the bass note and the root,
because due to the less tense overtone structure both bass and root
can make strong claims to be the root.
Margo Shulter:
>My first impression of the fourth was one of absolute delight; I found out
>what a vertical fourth was as the result of taking a high school course in
>music appreciation (an historical survey), getting interested in madrigal
>singing, and learning something about the intervals as a preparation for
>sight singing. Playing parallel fourths on the piano was a thing of beauty
>-- except for the tritone, to which my first reaction was to ask if the
>piano was out of tune!
I remember two 'first fourths' for me: I was long aware of the
intervals, but the power of the fourth appeared to me for the first
time when I was studying Stockhausen's Klavierstueck I, in a
(succesful) attempt to get to enjoy his music, which I had been having
trouble with before then. The fourth that I am referring to is in bar
three, it is one of the best fourths in the history of music.
I later learnt to enjoy the pleasure of singing in paralel fourths
when I was involved in a production of Xenakis' Oresteia. The ensemble
goes wild in tense glissandi, and suddenly the male choir begins to
sing this very powerful tetrachord-based melody in paralel fourths.
Amazing.
Best wishes
Samuel
Todd Michel McComb
In article <3478303f...@news.xs4all.nl>,
Samuel Vriezen <s...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>it does appear that the brand of Music Theory S and X engaged in
>is rather unique, perhaps more comparable to the way composers use
>'philosophies', such as Cage's relation to Zen and Beethoven's to
>the Revolution, than to the work of Fux or Schenker.
Yes, I think this is a rather different sort of relationship than
that which generally exists between music & "music theory" ... rather
that it's more a case of "theoretical music" which then had to be
realized in practice. Whether that means that the usual sort of
"music theory" will never be prominent for this music, I don't know,
but I suppose that's possible.
>Would there be more proper analogies to this particular post-war
>theory-situation in the history of music?
No, I think that is quite new... that has been one of my themes of
discussion elsewhere. I look for the roots of it more in the changing
of academia and the application of scientific paradigms to other
disciplines than in anything within the field of music per se. In
that sense, it broadens the scope of music as "medium for ideas" and
the corresponding sonic elements which might occur. I see this as
Neo-Medieval in the sense of music-as-science, and one can perhaps see
these later examples as a dramatic extension of numerology, yet I
think the impetus comes from rather different places and makes closer
correspondences difficult.
Todd McComb
mcc...@best.com
M. Schulter
Christian Bisson <chris...@videotron.ca> wrote:
: Hi everybody
> To me medieval music is the music you can hear in stories that
> occured in the Middle Ages, with castles and princesses. I'm maybe
> wrong but I'm asking you: how can you compose medieval music? What
> are its characteristics? Thanks in advance.
Hello, there.
As someone who does compose in medieval styles, and has performed music
from this period as well as theorized about it a great deal and with much
pleasure (this being rec.music.theory), please let me attempt a reply.
You should note that I am _not_ attempting to cover many vital topics,
such as the history of liturgical chant, which plays a central role
throughout this millenium or so music (say c. 500-1430, as I'll explain
below), and indeed goes back to earlier Jewish and Christian traditions.
Also, before starting my inevitably biased discourse <grin>, I should
emphasize a great resource for learning about "what's out there" when it
comes to centuries, styles, and recorded performances:
1. When does "medieval music" begin?
------------------------------------
First, the exact (or not-so-exact) boundaries of "medieval" times and
music are subject to much debate. In traditional history, the "Middle
Ages" extend from about 476 A.D. (one date for the fall of the Roman
Empire) to 1453 (the capture of Constantinople/Istanbul). However, this
is not a definition oriented to musical theory and practice.
If asked to give my first impressions, I might say that the musical Middle
Ages could begin with the great theorist Boethius, a scholar and
philosopher celebrated in later medieval tradition who also,
interestingly, was a political prisoner judicially assassinated in 524.
In the medieval tradition of the Seven Liberal Arts, music was part of the
Quadrivium, along with Arithmetic, Geometry, and Astronomy; these four
studies were based upon the Trivium: Grammar, Rhetoric, and Logic. Thus
Boethius, who placed music theory in this context, can be seen as a font
of medieval learning.
2. Carolingean Renaissance and Polyphony
-----------------------------------------
The period from about 500 to 800 is sometimes called "The Dark Ages," in
good part because relatively little is known about it, although people
like the Venerable Bede in England (d. 735), a monastic historian, give us
precious glimpses of life in these centuries.
Around 800, however, the Carolingean Renaissance initiated by Charlemagne
and his intellectual circle such as Alcuin resulted in a new flowering of
learning and the arts, emphatically including music. The 9th century marks
the first treatises on polyphony or harmony: the art of combining two or
more simultaneous voices.
As Todd McComb has discussed, the first preserved polyphonic
"compositions" in the usual sense seem to go back to the 10th and early
11th centuries. However, only around the second quarter of the 11th
century did Guido d'Arezzo and others begin to standardize a musical
notation in which compositions could be easily preserved.
By the 12th century, this new notational technology and the artistic drive
to experiment had set in motion two major schools or traditions of
polyphony: Santiago de Compostella, a great center of pilgrimmage in
Spain, and St. Martial or Limoges. By the middle of the century, the Notre
Dame School of Leonin (fl. c. 1150-1175?) and later Perotin (fl. c.
1180-1210?) was coming into prominence.
Perotin and his colleagues represent a "Big Bang" in Western European
harmony: the development of a style of composition for three or four
voices which takes advantage of _all_ the vertical intervals and an
amazingly diverse vocabulary of harmonic combinations.
3. The 13th century: characteristics and compositional techniques
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Since I love the 13th-century styles and compose in them, I'll focus on
this period to answer some of your questions about characteristics and
compositional techniques.
First of all, I would strongly advise to you to hear "the real thing" --
or the best modern performances approaching it -- for yourself! Reading
through some of the music, or performing it, is also better than relying
on even the best medieval or modern analyses apart from an experience of
the music itself.
Curiously, medieval and 20th-century music share some characteristics
setting them both apart from the intervening centuries. As already
mentioned, free use of _all_ the categories of intervals in harmonic
combinations is one of the trademarks. If you like Bartok or Debussy, you
may find 13th-century music "not so strange." People more attuned to the
16th or 18th century may find it "strangely dissonant," because the
harmonic progressions are different -- not better or worse, but indeed
_different_.
One characteristic is that fifths and fourths are the most favored
intervals, but even the intensively "discordant" minor second and major
seventh have a role to play in the practical harmony of the period. This
means lots of drama and contrast and excitement -- not everyone likes
this, but some of us who do love it.
Of course, today we cannot literally compose "medieval music" -- or
19th-century music, for that matter -- but we certainly can write music
based on these historical styles. If you wish to learn 13th-century
harmony, I would advise that you start out by hearing lots of the actual
music. There are indeed a number of treatises surviving from this period,
as well as some modern analyses. One thing I'd like to do is to write a
book on 13th-century compositional techniques, and your post lends
encouragement (not to say that my approach would necessarily be the best).
As Johannes de Grocheio tells us around 1300, a composition is built up in
layers, somewhat like a house or other edifice: and these melodic layers
should combine to produce "perfect" or complete harmony. In other words,
there is a nice balance between vertical (harmony) and horizontal (melody)
dimensions.
4. The 14th century: Ars Nova and Ars Subtilior
-----------------------------------------------
While 13th-century technique is based on a nice balance of the full
spectrum of intervals, around 1300 some "modernists" inevitably sought to
change things, and developed an _Ars Nova_ or "new art." In addition to
promoting the use of duple as well as triple rhythm (the former being rare
in 13th-century compositions), these "moderns" such as Philippe de Vitry
and Johannes de Muris urged a more restricted treatment of seconds and
sevenths as well as a more favored use of thirds and sixths (already vital
to the usual 13th-century style).
In practice, both French composers such as Guillaume de Machaut (c.
1300-1377) and Italian composers such as Francesco Landini (d. 1397)
developed these rhythmic and harmonic innovations to create brilliant
music -- Machaut sometimes adapting 13th-century liberties such as the
bold use of minor sevenths and major ninths to forge his own musical
language, and Landini following a somewhat more restrained and "lyric"
style.
Around the time of Machaut's death, avant garde composers sought further
to extend the rhythmic and polymetric possibilities of the music in an
_Ars subtilior_ ("More subtle art") which remains six centuries later
remarkable alike for its beauty and complexity. It is agreed that certain
noble French courts were major centers of this artistic movement, with an
oft-debated role for the Papal Court at Avignon, possibly _a_ center for
the movement, but not now regarded as _the_ center (as was the view a few
decades ago).
5. The medieval/Renaissance "boundary": around 1430?
----------------------------------------------------
During the period of about 1400-1420, music based more or less on
established 14th-century techniques of harmony -- with a tendency away
from extreme complexity, and toward the lyric Italian style (e.g. Ciconia)
-- appears to have been the general rule.
Sometime around 1425 or 1430, the young Guillaume Dufay (1397?-1474) and
others began to adopt a new style, based in good part on the "English
countenance" -- the English style cultivated by composers such the great
John Dunstable (d. 1453). By 1440, a poem notes this new English flavor in
French music -- and by 1477, the theorist Johannes Tinctoris can report
that the learned regard no music worth hearing save that written in the
previous 40 years!
Of course, the history of medieval English music is another topic in
itself -- so this is indeed a quick (if long) reply.
M. Schulter
Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
: > In article <3476AD...@online.no>, Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote:
: > > d1 (d1 held until b) b
: > > g a g f# g a g f# e
: > >time values 2 1 1 2 4 2 2 2 4
: > >
: > >Supposing that this is late medieval/renaissance music (which it isn't),
: > >how would you classify it?
[I agree with Todd McComb that this isn't easily taken as a medieval or
Renaissance style, and then make an unjustified assumption:]
: > Of course, Tore, the other side of this is to say that you've written
: > something new and interesting;
: Not at all. This comes from "When The Music's Over" by the Doors, 1967.
: The phrase I quoted is played by the organ near the end of this song.
: It is not very audible on the record, and I would not associate it with
: rock if I did not know what it was.
: The tonality here is basically a sort of dorian folk song mixed with
: blues elements. In the extract quoted, the dorian element is clearly
: visible, but the connection with blues music is only hinted at by the
: syncopation in the middle of the phrase.
Curiously, if I were asked to guess about the modality of this extract in
isolation, I might be more included to say "G Mixolydian or Ionian"
(depending on whether the F# is seen as a transposition of Ionian or just
as a local inflection), and the e-b at the end as a secondary center.
Not knowing the context, maybe I should ask what the center is for Dorian
-- possibly E with C# occurring elsewhere, or G with Bb elsewhere, or
something else? There's at least a refreshing honesty about admitting: "I
don't know the piece, but I'm very curious."
If the F# is just a local inflection, then doing it at the transition to
the e-b sonority seems to me a bit unexpected, given the typical medieval
pattern that a local flat descends whereas a sharp ascends:
d' b
f e
Here the contrary motion of f-d' to e-e' (M6-8) seems to me most typical,
but the actual b in the upper voice could be taken as part of the same
8/5 trine on e (e-b-e') -- I wonder if a theorist of the period around
1300 might like this modern explanation.
: > I've enjoyed playing it and discovering its newness.
: There's more of it on the album "Strange Days" by The Doors. Thanks for
: your comments, and Todd's too.
Please let me join you in thanking Todd for his great contributions --
and also for an intriguing musical source. I hope you'll take my original
incorrect assumption about authorship as a great compliment.
M. Schulter
John Ladasky <jlad...@cmgm.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
: In article <654vo0$306$2...@vnetnews.value.net>,
: M. Schulter <msch...@value.net> wrote:
: [...]
: >Anyway, I wonder if other people might have views on the 16th-century
: >"consonant fourth" idiom.
: Until I was exposed to classical (18th-19th Century) music
: theory, I never heard fourths as "dissonant." In this sentence I'm
: using dissonant to mean, "needing resolution." I'm not using it as
: a euphemism for "cacophonous," as was mentioned by another poster: nor
: as Morley apparently meant it -- "offending the ear?" Did he really
: write that? It's almost enough to make one think less of his music!
Well, I agree with you about the fourth: in the 12th and 13th centuries,
it's frequently a resolution for some unstable interval such as m2 or M2
(by stepwise contrary motion). Perotin uses lots of 8/4 combinations (e.g.
Salvatoris hodie). This isn't to mention the popularity of parallel
fourths in _lots_ of world musics.
The Morley quote strikes me as curious also, although he could claim the
precedent of at least one Renaissance theorist around 1500 (I don't want
to get the name wrong) who took a similar view.
The view of the fourth (above the lowest voice) as a "dissonance" seems to
have been one of the elements of the Ars Nova theory of the early 14th
century, together with a new prohibition of parallel fifths and octaves.
Jacobus of Liege eloquently defends the traditional 13th-century view that
the fourth is a concord in the same class as the fifth, although he also
observes that it is not so pleasing as the fifth, and is ideally placed
above the fifth rather than below (i.e. 8/5 is more conclusive than 8/4).
: I was pleased to find in Hindemith's writings that he treated each
: interval and its inversion as being equal on the consonance/dissonance
: scale -- a perfect fourth and a perfect fifth, to his thinking, were
: the same. Aside from the minor second and major seventh, I tend to
: agree.
The 13th century generally indeed puts fifths and fourths in the same
class, but recognizes a dramatic exception to the pattern that you
advocate: M3 and m3 are unstable but relatively blending, but M6 is on a
par with M2 and m7 (relatively tense but somewhat "compatible"), and m6 is
often placed on a par with m2, M7, and A4 or d5 (strongly discordant).
I'd be interested to hear more about your perceived asymmetry for m2 and
M7. At least a couple of theorists I've read (one medieval, one modern) do
recognize m7 as milder than M2, although these intervals usually get
classed together in either the 13th or 20th century as mild discords.
BTW, might these fine distinctions have anything to do with "lumping and
splitting" <grin> -- a topic I enjoy.
Todd Michel McComb
In article <65ab5i$2t5$1...@vnetnews.value.net>,
M. Schulter <msch...@value.net> wrote:
>If asked to give my first impressions, I might say that the musical Middle
>Ages could begin with the great theorist Boethius, a scholar and
>philosopher celebrated in later medieval tradition who also,
>interestingly, was a political prisoner judicially assassinated in 524.
This end of things is not often discussed, and I'm perfectly willing
to accept your boundary. The number of sources from these centuries
is so slim, that pre-medieval music is a mostly conjectural discipline,
regardless of boundary. I don't think many people worry about it.
>By the 12th century, this new notational technology and the artistic drive
>to experiment had set in motion two major schools or traditions of
>polyphony: Santiago de Compostella, a great center of pilgrimmage in
>Spain, and St. Martial or Limoges. By the middle of the century, the Notre
>Dame School of Leonin (fl. c. 1150-1175?) and later Perotin (fl. c.
>1180-1210?) was coming into prominence.
I have to take some issue with this. As far as I know, and please
correct me if more recent scholarship suggests otherwise, the
polyphony preserved in Santiago originated in Southern France and
most likely from the school of St. Martial. Indeed, whenever I
see the term "two major schools" for twelth century polyphony, they
are Aquitaine centered on St. Martial (a large monastery, for those
less familiar with the name) and pre-Notre Dame Paris. Indeed
there are several interesting items from the Paris region between
the age of Chartres & Notre Dame. Calixtinus is distinctive to be
sure, but is regarded as an appendix to St. Martial style, so far
as I know.
>The medieval/Renaissance "boundary": around 1430?
This is a case where one sees different boundaries given in different
surveys. This is also the one I use, although I typically call it
c.1420 (but I'm sure we mean the same thing). The early careers
of Binchois & Dufay are the defining break in this chronology.
Alternately, I also see the boundary placed roughly between the
careers of Ockeghem & Josquin. The appeal here is the more humanistic
approach to text in Josquin's music, signaling a shift in orientation
representative of the Renaissance in other domains. In many ways,
I feel as though the Dufay-Ockeghem decades can be placed in either
musical era, but since I tend toward the more technical I'll go
with the shift in harmonic consonance rather than the shift in text
setting. This is also the way I was taught, with the Renaissance
beginning at Dufay.
The suggestion by Matt Fields for a cut-off date of c.1375 is one
I hadn't seen before (not that I've made an effort to survey opinions
on the matter), and I'm really not sure what events that date would
signify. One could probably push the boundary up to c.1410 with
the newest layer of Old Hall, but I can't see placing it within
the 1300s as useful.
Todd McComb
mcc...@best.com
M. Schulter
: How about "intentional innovation with an eye toward prescription" ....
: I didn't choose me words particularly carefully in that paragraph.
: Todd McComb
: mcc...@best.com
Todd, would that I could choose my words so effectively, and concisely
<grin>.
An apt sentence or paragraph from you both sums up the matter, and sets
off cascades of allusions, details, and free associations. I'm not sure
that my attempted glosses help the situation with Usenet volume, but at
least I can hope that they reflect some of my sense of delight.
Both your remark of yesterday and this one express a very attractive view
of why Monteverdi was both the leader of the "Second Practice" and
Artusi's prime target. He was not only innovating within the form of the
madrigal, he was very deliberately _redefining_ it at his pleasure, in
music and theory alike.
Here I go back to _Cruda Amarilli_, and remember Artusi's outrage not only
at the sevenths themselves, but at the whole experimental approach. A
composer was basing his style on the "sophistries" of "accented singing"
-- claiming improvisational techniques as his own, on paper! Also, Artusi
has language condemning those "moderns" who rely on experiments with
instruments to overturn the sound rules of counterpoint.
In fact, quite unlike the case with Wert (as I hear him), the texture of
this piece does at points become a kind of written-out vocal art quite
different than the madrigal-as-hitherto-known -- your thesis exactly!
This brings to mind Martin Luther's famous quote: Other musicians must do
as the notes bid, but Josquin makes the notes do his bidding. Here it
might be said that other musicians (including Rore, Wert, and Gesualdo)
have used the madrigal for their innovations, but Monteverdi redefines the
form itself.
Thus by 1619, we have a Seventh Book of Madrigals including "Concerto" in
the title, so that a modern admirer can ask "When is a madrigal not a
concerto?"
Todd Michel McComb
In article <65af1j$2t5$4...@vnetnews.value.net>,
M. Schulter <msch...@value.net> wrote:
>In fact, quite unlike the case with Wert (as I hear him), the texture of
>this piece does at points become a kind of written-out vocal art quite
>different than the madrigal-as-hitherto-known -- your thesis exactly!
On this particular point, it is important not to forget the
experiments of the Ferrara school, so that indeed Monteverdi's
elements _had_ been in place. The key distinction, as I see it,
is that Monteverdi was a "rhetorical big shot" ... adept with words,
and able to argue a point persuasively and with keen implication.
Luzzaschi was by contrast a provincial organist (who wrote out
improvisational ornaments in this way, both in keyboard music
prompting Frescobaldi and in madrigals).
Todd McComb
mcc...@best.com
Todd Michel McComb
In article <65ahmb$njb$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,>I don't claim to be an expert on the matter, I was just under the
>impression that developments in England had introduced the stunningly
>different texture of mainly 6/3 combinations 50 years before it made
>inroads into the continent and I supposed that might be a significant
>event.
The third had always been somewhat more prominent in England than
on the Continent, although the native English style took something
of a back seat to the French in the 14th century (seems there was
some war or something, and nobility moving around; messy indeed).
In the Old Hall Manuscript, the oldest layer of composition shows
the usual French-style medieval texture more or less, but the more
recent layer dating to c.1410 starts reasserting the third. Within
a short time, we see Power & Dunstable assert it more forcefully.
Sources are slim, so this change seems rather abrupt, although
curiously mirrored in what had been English Ars Antiqua practice,
prompting plenty of speculation.
In short, although it makes sense that things were happening in
England in the timeframe you suggest, no one can really point to
it. I do believe there is some evidence in the folk-carol tradition,
but I am not very familiar with it.
Todd McComb
mcc...@best.com
Todd Michel McComb
In article <65aqhd$7od$1...@vnetnews.value.net>,
M. Schulter <msch...@value.net> wrote:
>True confession: romantic legends are hard to resist. I remember around
>1967 hearing those colorful M2-1 progressions in an example from "the
>School of Compostella," and associating the music with the great tradition
>of the place, the reference in Chaucer, and so forth.
That makes good sense. Certainly the pilgrimage inspired a lot of
great music, even if it took its musicianship from elsewhere.
>Having seconded your correction on the idea of a "School of Compostella,"
>I would add that Hoppin and especially Fuller seem to suggest that while
>the attributions are unreliable, they suggest a _Northern_ French as
>opposed to Aquitanian provenance for the Compostella repertory.
That could well be... I wouldn't be able to add more detail than
that. I agree that they seem more Northern in some ways, but the
arguments I had been thinking of go more for "proximity" as the
null case. I do recall suggestions of Northern provenance, now
that you mention it.
>It would be a neat situation if it turns out that some of these
>pieces are actually _among_ "items from the Paris region between
>the age of Chartres and Notre Dame."
Yes, perhaps so.... If I am too vague on that, I don't mean to
be... some of my favorite songs are from "Paris, Bibliotheque
Nationale, fonds latin, Ms. 1139" and there are similar manuscripts
as well. It's a shame their names aren't more fun.
I hesitate to bring recordings into this group, and I don't know
if you know it, but Dominique Vellard's "Nova Cantica" recording
on Deutsche Harmonia Mundi 77196 featuring these songs is *fabulous*.
>It does seem to me that Dufay in the 1420's -- what a potentially great
>theme for a movie -- is often close to the traditional Italian style, but
>then again, the new style was getting started too, and overlap is natural.
Many of his hymn harmonizations are now dated to this decade, if
I have my figures straight, and that casts something of a new light
on it. These are very much in the mold of Dunstable, with
third-dominated cadences. Many of the harmonized hymns from this
era found in the Vatican are now being tentatively attributed to
Dufay, BTW.
But I just love the song "Adieu ces bons vins de Lannoys" of 1426,
and so feel more compelled by the 1420s as a major transition. Of
course, precision of this sort is silly indeed, when it comes right
down to it.
Todd McComb
mcc...@best.com
Todd Michel McComb
In article <65atie$8t9$1...@vnetnews.value.net>,
M. Schulter <msch...@value.net> wrote:
>Sometime closer to 1300 than to 1375, likely, the English style starts
>going for parallel 6/3 sonorities in a big way in a genre called
>_cantilena_. One famous example is _Beata viscera_ from the Worcester
>fragments, which often are dated around 1300. Here we have the
>characteristic passages in parallel 6/3's -- varied with other mildly
>unstable sonorities such as 10/5 -- punctuated by 6/3-8/5 cadences.
The problem with saying something like "starts going for" is that
there are only spotty sources, and most of the 14th century music
preserved in England isn't like this at all (Worcester is dated
c.1290, I believe). Apparently there was some sort of predilection
there which resurfaced, and I think that people are presently trying
to look at the carol genre for a continuation of this procedure
(and that found in "Sumer"). In other words, the Ars Nova style
seems to have been more uniform, but the English Ars Antiqua has
examples of an increased use of thirds.
Todd McComb
mcc...@best.com