Secrets of Harmony: Introduction
Albert Silverman
THE SECRETS OF HARMONY
Introduction
by Albert Silverman
04/16/96
----------------------
Everyone who studies music in one of our academic institutions or music
conservatories gets a dose of what is commonly referred to as "theory."
Therefore, the first order of business is to understand both the generally
accepted meaning of "theory" and the special (but unexpected)
interpretation which Musical Academia attaches to this word.
Let us start with Webster's dictionary, which defines "theory" as:
"A more or less plausible or scientifically acceptable general
principle offered to explain phenomena."
In accordance with this definition,
THEORY IS SYNONYMOUS WITH *UNDERSTANDING*
For example, in the field of science, the phenomena which are "explained"
by different theories are such things as (in physics) the motion of bodies,
the nature of vibrations, the nature of chemical reactions, etc., etc. That
is, the "explanation" provided by the theory aids one in understanding the
particular phenomena.
For its own self-serving reasons, however, Musical Academia claims that the
phenomena that are being explained (in accordance with Webster's
definition) by musical "theory" are _musical Art and History_ (which will
henceforth be referred to as "Ancient Art"). The implications of this
interpretation are profound and far-reaching.
Most of those who have had any significant contact with music know that the
major body of what is commonly referred to as musical "theory" is concerned
with "chords." What is not generally understood, however, is the dismal
failure of Ancient Art to come to grips with chords.
Considering this apparent "theoretical" preoccupation with chords, one has
every right to expect that a major purpose for teaching "theory" is to
provide the student with an *understanding* of
CHORD RELATIONSHIPS
Unfortunately, however, this is not the case. In a cruel joke perpetrated
at the expense of his comprehension, what the student of musical theory
generally receives instead is an _explanation of Ancient Art_. The problem
with this clever substitution is that the unwary student cannot distinguish
between Ancient Art and the principles of chord relationships. And Musical
Academia is hardly chomping at the bit to point out this distinction.
Were it *REASONABLY* to explain the principles of chord relationships,
there would be no practical objection to Ancient Art's being referred to as
"theory," since it would then at least conform with compositional practice.
But this is far from the case. Instead, Ancient Art is a horribly complex,
virtually incomprehensible maze of irrationality, inconsistency, and
irrelevance, which does nothing at all to promote an understanding chord
relationships.
Rather than to set forth the principles of chord relationships, the
purpose of Ancient Art is to explain how music was written during the
common-practice period.
What's wrong with this? Nothing at all, assuming that one wishes to learn
the compositional STYLE of this period (ranging roughly from 1650 to 1900).
However, if one's purpose (and this is very different indeed) is to learn
the principles of chord relationships, then studying Ancient Art in the
hope of obtaining an UNDERSTANDING of these important relationships is
futile.
Although several of these principles are lurking around somewhere in a
typical course in musical "theory," they are buried deep under a mass of
_irrelevant stylistic detail_, which precludes their recognition.
WHO needs to understand chord relationships?
In the ultimate analysis, what it all boils down to in the musical wash is
whether or not Musical Academia should serve those who have a NEED to
understand the principles of chord relationships. In this regard, anyone
who
(1) composes "serious" music based upon the triad,
(2) arranges or transcribes music in the popular style,
(3) improvises in the popular style, or
(4) teaches music in the popular style
has a need to understand these principles. Even composers who are not
composing triadic music still need this knowledge, which is the backbone of
musical "literacy."
On the other hand, there is very little evidence that the "classical" music
PERFORMER need know much of anything about chord relationships. All that
he/she need do is read the notes which are set in front of him/her; the
principles employed to compose the music are of no practical importance. In
other words, the instrumental performer who is not improvising can, without
any knowledge of chord relationships, safely navigate his/her way through
the printed score.
Ancient Art versus Chord Relationships
Given that Ancient Art (1) MUST be preserved, and (2) does not reasonably
explain the principles of chord relationships, how can these principles be
successfully taught, assuming that the intent is to teach them to everyone
who needs them? Following an innate law of the universe, that which is not
needed is guaranteed to fall through the cracks.
Not unexpectedly, the large majority of music students are grist for
Musical Academia's mill of self-serving interests. What are these? Above
all else, the overriding concern of Musical Academia is to preserve Ancient
Art until the end of time, whatever the cost. In particular, the "purity"
of Art Music _must not be diluted by catering to popular interests_. Thus
it is quite understandable that, when push comes to shove, Musical Academia
is going to follow its self-appointed charter and teach Ancient Art, rather
than teaching an understanding of chord relationships.
In principle, it is a simple matter to keep Ancient Art and chord
relationships firmly separated. Imagine, if you will, this classroom
scenario:
In this corner, folks, we have that jester, "Ancient Bunko." While he
is an aesthetic fellow who is artistically useful and is not
interested in revising musical history, he is nevertheless a ludicrous
and enigmatic clown, who will entertain us with his ridiculous
patch and-piece efforts to conform with compositional practice.
Take a bow, AB.
Over here in this other corner, folks, we have Chord Relationships.
While he has excellent _aural correlation_, is logical and well-
organized, and conforms with triadic compositional practice in ANY
time period, he cannot abide that insufferable prankster, Ancient
Bunko. Lighten up, CR.
Be very sure that you keep your fighters straight, or YOU will wind up
on the floor!
What is the problem with this dual approach to teaching harmony? Contrary
to the old saying, honesty is NOT the best policy. In point of fact, it is
an unpardonable sin in Musical Academia, which poses three arguments
against "honesty-in-chords."
(1) It casts Ancient Art in an unfavorable light.
(2) Eliminating the mystique and incredible confusion that are part and
parcel of musical "art" poses a grave danger to the Academic Musical
Caste System. How can the musical caste be identified and the riff-raff
kept out of The Club, if the playing field is leveled by destroying the
"understanding barrier"?
(3) Any theory which provides an UNDERSTANDING of chord relationships is
(paraphrasing the words of one typical academic representative who
teaches music theory and composition) "artistically useless." In other
words, eliminate the mystique, confusion, and absurdity from music
"theory" and it is no longer "art." Yes indeed, Perfessor.
So what to do, without giving the show away? The accepted academic
"solution" to this problem is brilliant. Simply teach Ancient Art to all
music students, while at the same time claiming that it is "theory," whose
purpose is to "explain" the musical composition of the common-practice
period.
Reflecting Musical Academia's perception of "need," it is not concerned
with providing this understanding to those whose musical interests lie in
the invisible (lowbrow) popular sector. That is, it is not concerned with
music that it does not deem to be "art music." Nor is it concerned with
providing this understanding to non-compositional majors. Surely, goes the
script, the non-compositional major will be none the worse for wear if he
(or she) emerges from his course in "theory" _believing that he understands
chord relationships_, when what he has REALLY been taught is a bogus
substitute: Ancient Art.
On the other hand, most students who major in "serious-music" composition
will, if they persevere, eventually learn the principles of chord
relationships. They will, however, be weighted down by the heavy baggage of
Ancient Art, the bulk of which is irrelevant to chord relationships.
Yet it is essential that ALL pay lip service to Ancient Art and History. To
witness the result of this academic subservience to Ancient Authority,
study the books on "theory" by some very famous composers/teachers. More
likely than not, their explanations of the underlying principles of their
musical craft are truly incredible!
The "Secrets" of Harmony
Webster's dictionary defines "harmony" as "The science of the structure,
relation, and progression of chords." In view of the word "science," it
appears that Webster came up with this definition without conferring with
Musical Academia!
As previously stated, although Ancient Art centers around the study of
chords in the developmental common-practice period, the theoretical
principles of chord relationships remain buried deep under a pile of
irrelevant stylistic detail. It follows that, if understanding is the
object, these principles *MUST* be extracted from this stylistic "garbage
dump."
To this end, I have prepared a four-part treatise which is entitled "The
Secrets of Harmony." The secrets to which I refer are the result of this
extraction ("decryption") process. These are indeed secrets that are
exceptionally well kept from all who study "theory" but who do not major in
musical composition.
Departing from accepted academic notion that "theory" should explain common
practice compositional style, this is a presentation of the principles of
chord relationships in ABSTRACT form; i.e., divorced from any particular
stylistic context. Such a "scientific" type of presentation is very
powerful and takes the reader quickly to the heart of the harmonic
"structural organization," without requiring the navigation of a
hopelessly-complex, common-practice stylistic maze.
In short, the principles of triadic composition, applicable to composition
in any time period, are illuminated in a manner as never before.
========================================================================
Part 1 discusses chord construction in isolation; i.e., without reference
to the use of a chord in a specific musical context.
Part 2 gets directly to the heart of the DYNAMIC basis for chord
relationships. Presented here are the principles which underlie
_dynamically-induced progression between two chords having an interval of a
"5th" between their root-tones of construction_.
Part 3 presents a dynamic solar-system model of the harmonic structure,
containing TWELVE functional roots. This model serves to clarify the nature
of "root progression."
Part 4 (which is in three pieces for convenience of presentation)
discusses, in penetrating detail, the pertinent features of the Ancient
Harmonic Model which is taught throughout Musical Academia as "theory." It
is both frightening, for its implications in musical "education," and
entertaining, by virtue of its absurdity!
What a combination!
Mason Stockstill
This guy obviously had a bad experience in Music theory class.
--
Fly in the face of Convention!
http://members.aol.com/masonstrm/home.html
Albert Silverman
In article <saxman-3001...@s189-143.resnet.ucla.edu>,
Mason Stockstill <sax...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>This guy obviously had a bad experience in Music theory class.
Wanna bet?
By the way, exactly what is it that you disagree with in my Introduction?
Mason Stockstill
> >This guy obviously had a bad experience in Music theory class.
>
> Wanna bet?
>
> By the way, exactly what is it that you disagree with in my Introduction?
Well, first of all, unless you have studied in every institution of higher
learning that this planet has to offer, I think your claims about the
ignorance of the many and the closed-mindedness of the professors is a
little uncalled-for and logically fallacious.
Also, I have read your "secrets" up through part three. And, except for
the patronizing tone, air of superiority, and disdain for the study of
tonality and common practice with which all this is written, it resembles
my Theory textbook and professor's lectures quite a bit. "Secrets" isn't
the title I would use.
And I also have a gripe with your gripe regarding the circle of fifths.
>For purposes of this discussion, the root of central significance (the
>musical sun) will be noted as {1}. Beginning with this root, successive
>roots along the circle are numbered clockwise in order. Note that the
>circle is closed between {12} and {1}. In light of the above development,
>however, this geometric closure is erroneous, since it falsely implies a
>relationship between these two roots that is not supported by the dynamic
>solar system model. Closing the circle between these two roots implies that
>they are only one degree apart when, in point of fact, {12} is the root
>which is _most remote_ from {1}. While roots {2} and {12} appear (i.e.,
>geometrically) to be equidistant from {1}, our musical astronaut visiting
>station {2} will have a strong attraction back to {1}, while there will be
>a negligible attraction from station {12}.
It seems that you back up your assertion that the {12} chord (being the IV
chord in the nomenclature most musicians use) has no pull to the {1}
chord by saying that another assertion that you made up backs it up.
This is akin to me saying, "the world of music is like a car with five
gears. And everyone knows you can't go from fifth gear to first gear
without a lot of hassle, so therefore you can't go from the chord I
associate with 5 to the other one I call 1."
And you seem to contradict yourself, too. First you say that chord
progreesions (or whatever new and exciting phrease you have thought of to
call them) all depend on what our western ears have taught us to expect,
which is why a G7 has a tendency to go to a Cmaj triad. Now, an F chord,
{12} in the planetary model w/ C as the root, cetainly has not quite as
strong a tendency to go to {1} as, say your {2}, which is a G chord.
However, you and I both know that within this context of having one chord
as the ultimate goal, the {1}, for your little astronaut to get to, there
can often be many planets the little dude goes to . And, as in the real
world, there is a gravitational pull between other planets, as well as to
the sun. there is a pull, say from {6} to {5}, albeit not as strong as the
pull from {2} to {1}. Since the difference in roots between {6} and {5}
are a fifth, they have that pull.
But, remember, the difference between {12} and {1} is also a fifth, except
that it is spelled backwards. So, you caould go from {1} to {12} quite
easily, since their roots are five apart, and back again. You even say
this yourself, contradicting what you said about there being negligible
attraction.
And the part where you contradict yourself again is where you say that 12
is too far away to pull to 1, and vice versa. But we have seen plagal
cadences in use forever, and pardon me for calling upon Ancient Art, but
most western ears will be conditioned ot have no problem hearing a IV-I
progression, or even I-IV.
Plus, the circle of fifths is a useful tool, because with it you can start
anyhwere in the circle and see where the chord tendencies lead. With your
sun model, it is passable, but you have to keep changing the root/sun when
you want to make a progression. Also, with the circle of fifiths, and
knolwedge of common chord substitutions, one can easily outline many chord
changes that are frequent and in common use, while they would make your
astronaut dizzy and tired. For example, I - vi - IV - V would be
{1}{4}{12}{2}, whreas using the circle of fifths, and subbing IV in for
ii, which is not altoghether unheard of, it progresses rather smoothly.
Albert Silverman
In article <saxman-3101...@s189-143.resnet.ucla.edu>,
Mason Stockstill <sax...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>> >This guy obviously had a bad experience in Music theory class.
>>
>> Wanna bet?
>>
>> By the way, exactly what is it that you disagree with in my Introduction?
>
>Well, first of all, unless you have studied in every institution of higher
>learning that this planet has to offer, I think your claims about the
>ignorance of the many and the closed-mindedness of the professors is a
>little uncalled-for and logically fallacious.
Don't give me this "fallacy" nonsense!
The many ARE ignorant because they have not been properly taught. This is
hardly a secret.
Perfessers are expected to pay lip-service to ANCIENT AUTHORITY in the
teaching of so-called "common-practice theory," which is not theory at
all. What they are teaching does not, and never did have, any
compositional relevance.
For your education (SOMEBODY has to do it!), this is known as _Academic
Dishonesty_ and is to be roundly condemned. Unfortunately it is
widespread, and I have little doubt that YOUR perfessers toe the Ancient
Authoritarian line. Remember, Ancient Art must be preserved in eternity,
and unwary students are simply grist for the Academic Mill.
>
>Also, I have read your "secrets" up through part three. And, except for
>the patronizing tone, air of superiority, and disdain for the study of
>tonality and common practice with which all this is written, it resembles
>my Theory textbook and professor's lectures quite a bit. "Secrets" isn't
>the title I would use.
My treatise is NOT about "tonality" (whatever this may be) and "common
practice" STYLE. It is about harmonic THEORY. At present, you do not
understand what this means, because your perfessers do not understand
what it means. And if they do, they are keeping it well hidden!
I don't know what "theory" textbook you are using, but I would wager that
it doesn't even come CLOSE to my view of harmonic "structure."
>
>And I also have a gripe with your gripe regarding the circle of fifths.
>
>>For purposes of this discussion, the root of central significance (the
>>musical sun) will be noted as {1}. Beginning with this root, successive
>>roots along the circle are numbered clockwise in order. Note that the
>>circle is closed between {12} and {1}. In light of the above development,
>>however, this geometric closure is erroneous, since it falsely implies a
>>relationship between these two roots that is not supported by the dynamic
>>solar system model. Closing the circle between these two roots implies that
>>they are only one degree apart when, in point of fact, {12} is the root
>>which is _most remote_ from {1}. While roots {2} and {12} appear (i.e.,
>>geometrically) to be equidistant from {1}, our musical astronaut visiting
>>station {2} will have a strong attraction back to {1}, while there will be
>>a negligible attraction from station {12}.
>
>It seems that you back up your assertion that the {12} chord (being the IV
>chord in the nomenclature most musicians use) has no pull to the {1}
>chord by saying that another assertion that you made up backs it up.
>
> This is akin to me saying, "the world of music is like a car with five
>gears. And everyone knows you can't go from fifth gear to first gear
>without a lot of hassle, so therefore you can't go from the chord I
>associate with 5 to the other one I call 1."
What on earth are you talking about?
Let me spell it out for you. The {12} chord has no pull to the {1} chord
for the simple reason that _there are only TWELVE functional roots in the
structure_. Therefore, root {12} is the most REMOTE root in the system
and has no "pull" back toward {1}, even when the identity of {1} has been
clearly established.
>
>And you seem to contradict yourself, too. First you say that chord
>progreesions (or whatever new and exciting phrease you have thought of to
>call them) all depend on what our western ears have taught us to expect,
>which is why a G7 has a tendency to go to a Cmaj triad. Now, an F chord,
>{12} in the planetary model w/ C as the root, cetainly has not quite as
>strong a tendency to go to {1} as, say your {2}, which is a G chord.
You have missed the FUNDAMENTAL point of my entire theory, which is that
this expectation (in a G7 chord, for example, when C is the root-tone of
central significance) _is associated with the two semi-tone intervals of
the diatonic scale based upon tone C_.
NO semi-tone interval of the diatonic C-scale comes into play in the
progression from the F-major triad at {12} to the C-major triad at {1}.
On the other hand, in the progression from G7 at {2} to the C-major triad
at {1}, which is GBDF-->GCE, the progressions F-->E and B-->C involve the
two semi-tone intervals (E-F) and (B-C) of the diatonic C-scale.
You had best go back to the drawing board and STUDY Part 2 (The
Pair-Bond) which discusses this basic phenomenon in detail.
>
>However, you and I both know that within this context of having one chord
>as the ultimate goal, the {1}, for your little astronaut to get to, there
>can often be many planets the little dude goes to . And, as in the real
>world, there is a gravitational pull between other planets, as well as to
>the sun. there is a pull, say from {6} to {5}, albeit not as strong as the
>pull from {2} to {1}. Since the difference in roots between {6} and {5}
>are a fifth, they have that pull.
>
>But, remember, the difference between {12} and {1} is also a fifth, except
>that it is spelled backwards. So, you caould go from {1} to {12} quite
>easily, since their roots are five apart, and back again. You even say
>this yourself, contradicting what you said about there being negligible
>attraction.
As I previously stated, {12} is the most REMOTE root in the 12-root
system, and there is no DYNAMIC "closure" between {12} and {1}, even
though there appears to be on the "circle of 5ths" Until you can grasp
this basic point, you will find yourself running around in circles.
>
>And the part where you contradict yourself again is where you say that 12
>is too far away to pull to 1, and vice versa. But we have seen plagal
>cadences in use forever, and pardon me for calling upon Ancient Art, but
>most western ears will be conditioned ot have no problem hearing a IV-I
>progression, or even I-IV.
Of course they won't. THEORY describes the nature of the 12-root
structure, along with the "pair-bond" which binds each chord to the chord
that is one harmonic degree closer to {1}.
Traditional STYLE, however, describes _how chords are used_. That is,
which chord forms tend to be used at which structural locations, the
frequency of use, and whether or not particular roots even appear, within
a given stylistic framework.
Thus, the progression {12}-->{1}, or the reverse progression {1}-->{12},
both of which are "easy" since they are _free from perceptible dynamic
effect_, is a STYLISTIC use of the {12} chord, peculiar to simple
traditional music and also to much 20th century "popular" music.
In other words, you are confusing this stylistic use of {12} with the
theoretical statement that {12} is free from dynamic tensions and may
therefore be used without _going against any aurally-perceptible tendencies_.
>
>Plus, the circle of fifths is a useful tool, because with it you can start
>anyhwere in the circle and see where the chord tendencies lead.
This is correct. Nothing new here! I certainly didn't invent the wheel
(oops, I mean the Circle).
>With your
>sun model, it is passable, but you have to keep changing the root/sun when
>you want to make a progression.
The "sun" is the preferential root-tone which is established by means of
departure-and-return in synchronization with the melodic phrasing.
The whole point of my planetary model is that each root-tone is the first
tone of a _different diatonic scale_. What is so TERRIBLY WRONG with the
Ancient "theory" that you are being taught is that, in principle, all
chords are constructed upon the tones of a SINGLE diatonic scale, which I
refer to (in Part 4) as the Master Scale.
Unless you can break away from this irrelevant concept, you will never
understand the nature of my "dynamic" harmonic structure. Nor will you
ever understand what is NECESSARY if a theory is to have an AURAL
CORRELATION.
THIS IS THE WAY THAT IT IS--YOUR PERFESSERS TO THE CONTRARY
NOTWITHSTANDING!!!
>Also, with the circle of fifiths, and
>knolwedge of common chord substitutions, one can easily outline many chord
>changes that are frequent and in common use, while they would make your
>astronaut dizzy and tired. For example, I - vi - IV - V would be
>{1}{4}{12}{2}, whreas using the circle of fifths, and subbing IV in for
>ii, which is not altoghether unheard of, it progresses rather smoothly.
You are trying to address the problem of the identification of the
functional root of a chord. As a general rule, this identification comes
from the _voice leading_. It is NOT a process of "number substitution"
for the purpose of making the progression appear to go "smoothly"!
Albert Silverman
Matthew H. Fields
The phrase "compositional relevance" appears in an article here. For
several years, we've been asking Mr. Silverman what makes him think
his postings pertain to composition, e.g. whether he has tried any.
The reply has been a variety of flames mixed with reports that he
improvises around Tin Pan Alley songs at the piano. But once again
I'm willing to be surprised. So if anybody has access to any
compositions by Albert Silverman of La Mesa, CA, please let me know.
PS many of my own compositions can be heard in MIDI format at my
web site, so I'm not being idle here: I really think the accusation of
"not compositionally relevant" describes Silverman's postings quite well.
But they might inadvertently make interesting libretti for some funny
pieces! :-)
--
Matt Fields URL:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
SNAV88
slv...@netcom.com (Albert Silverman)
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 00:06:18 GMT
Message-ID: <slvrmnE4...@netcom.com>
wrote:
<<
Let me spell it out for you. The {12} chord has no pull to the {1} chord
for the simple reason that _there are only TWELVE functional roots in the
structure_. Therefore, root {12} is the most REMOTE root in the system
and has no "pull" back toward {1}, even when the identity of {1} has been
clearly established.
>>
(snip)
<<
As I previously stated, {12} is the most REMOTE root in the 12-root
system, and there is no DYNAMIC "closure" between {12} and {1}, even
though there appears to be on the "circle of 5ths" Until you can grasp
this basic point, you will find yourself running around in circles.
>>
Coming into this discussion midstream, and not aware of the various
threads which were previously posted,(which I will search and study), I
have one question to the aforesaid statement which may or may not be
relevant to the context. That question relates to the relationship of
roots 12 and 1 by way of a substitute IV - I, as a so-called "dynamic
closure" or into a modern approach as a sub.IV7-I6. It would then appear
that the "pull" strength of
an authentic or plagal cadence be equal to its subtitutes and *vice
versa*. The "pull" is just as strong whether by the traditional cadences
or by the chromatic substitutes. It has always been known that the Circle
of Fifths and Fourths were strong root progressions, and it has also been
known that the chromatic root progressions were as equal.
Without delving into coy assertions and being as objective as you can,
will you clearly and diligently state your beliefs as why the above might
be wrong in your thinking and perhaps include some references?
Steve Navoyosky (ASMAC)
Albert Silverman
In article <19970202043...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
SNAV88 <sna...@aol.com> wrote:
> slv...@netcom.com (Albert Silverman)
>Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 00:06:18 GMT
>Message-ID: <slvrmnE4...@netcom.com>
>
>wrote:
>
><<
>for the simple reason that _there are only TWELVE functional roots in the
>structure_. Therefore, root {12} is the most REMOTE root in the system
>and has no "pull" back toward {1}, even when the identity of {1} has been
>clearly established.
>>>
><<
>As I previously stated, {12} is the most REMOTE root in the 12-root
>system, and there is no DYNAMIC "closure" between {12} and {1}, even
>though there appears to be on the "circle of 5ths" Until you can grasp
>this basic point, you will find yourself running around in circles.
>>>
>
>
>threads which were previously posted,(which I will search and study), I
>have one question to the aforesaid statement which may or may not be
>relevant to the context. That question relates to the relationship of
>roots 12 and 1 by way of a substitute IV - I, as a so-called "dynamic
>closure" or into a modern approach as a sub.IV7-I6. It would then appear
>that the "pull" strength of
>an authentic or plagal cadence be equal to its subtitutes and *vice
>versa*. The "pull" is just as strong whether by the traditional cadences
>or by the chromatic substitutes. It has always been known that the Circle
>of Fifths and Fourths were strong root progressions, and it has also been
>known that the chromatic root progressions were as equal.
>
>Without delving into coy assertions and being as objective as you can,
>will you clearly and diligently state your beliefs as why the above might
>be wrong in your thinking and perhaps include some references?
I am not sure that I understand your question, but I have explained my
viewpoint (of the "dyanmic" harmonic structural model) in detail in Part
3 of my Secrets of Harmony, which is currently posted here.
In THEORY, there is "pull" which is exerted from a chord constructed upon
ANY root-tone, directed toward a chord constructed upon another root-tone
which is in a 5th-degree relationship, counting downward. For example, a
chord constructed upon the root-tone "G" would be pulled toward another
chord, constructed upon the root-tone "C". I refer to such a relationship
as a "pair-bond" (it is traditionally termed a "dominant-tonic"
relationship), and the nature of this bond is discussed in detail in Part
2 of my Secrets of Harmony.
However, the "pull" in the pair-bond is IMPLIED in a chord in isolation
from a musical context. Only when the chord is used in context is there a
POSSIBILITY that this pull will be perceived as an aural-dynamic
"tension," urging progression to the chord in a "tonic" relationship to
it, _wherever the root-tone may be located in the harmonic structure_.
The location of the root-tone in the structure can ONLY be determined
after the root-tone of central significance (the harmonic system "tonic")
has been established, via the phrasing in conjunction with
departure-and-return. For example, if tone "C" is established as the
root-tone of central significance, root-tone "F" becomes a structural {12}.
The theoretical model implies that the "pull" will be directed toward
root {11}, and NOT toward root {1}. In other words, the implication of
the pair-bond is that there will be a _chain root-progression from {12},
all of the way back to {1}_, via a series of so-called "dominant-tonic"
steps. Thus, the theoretically-implied root progression from {12} is
{12}-->{11}-->
{10}-->{9}-->{8}-->{7}-->{6}-->{5}-->{4}-->{3}-->{2}-->{1}, after which
things come to a screeching halt, since "home" has been reached.
Yet we know that, in PRACTICE, such long "chain" progressions do not take
place. The reason is that, even in the event that the root-tone of
central significance has been firmly established and is fresh in the
memory, an _aurally-perceptible_ dynamic tension does not exist for any
remote root beyond {3}. That is, the pair-bond IMPLICATION remains just that.
Hence, progression from ANY remote root beyond {3} is essentially "free"
from perceptible dynamic "pull." The result is that, any more remote
chord (such as {12}, for example) may progress directly to {1}, without
any aural "objection." The same thing holds true for other remote roots,
such as {5} or {8} or {9}, etc., etc.
Traditional STYLE gives us something called a "plagal" cadence, which is
{12}-->{1} near the end of a phrase. Traditional STYLE also gives us
something called an "authentic" cadence, which is {2}-->{1} at the end of
a phrase. However, these two root progressions _are DYNAMICALLY very
different_. Since {2} is only "harmonic degree" removed from one, it
exhibits a very strong pull toward {1}. In practice, this pull varies as
a function of the chord form constructed upon the root-tone. The
so-called "dominant 7th" is the chord form with the greatest pull. In
contrast, a chord with this construction, used at the very remote {12},
will have NO perceptible pull back toward {1}. The same thing will be
true for other functional roots, such as {11} or {7} (what you refer to
as "chromatic" roots, I believe, although this terminology is irrelevant
in a theory based upon a 12-root structure).
Hopefully I have answered your question. If not, refer to my Secrets of
Harmony for further discussion, or perhaps come back here AFTER you have
looked at it in some detail, and I shall try to provide further
clarification.
I have no references other than my Secrets of harmony. I have made up
all of this nonsense, free from the danger of "bias" from the
all-pervasive academic irrelevance in music theory instruction. The only "bias"
that I have is that which is associated with my own hearing (fine-tuned
after a great number of years of playing and studying), which I trust
far more than the hearing of others!
You see, there are a great many imaginary things that are presented in
Academia, to satisfy the perversity of Ancient Authority, to which
Academia MUST pay lip-service! In other words, academic references are
generally not worth the powder to blow them up, unless one is willing to
do a tortuous job of separating fiction from reality.
*I* would rather LISTEN!
Albert Silverman
------------------------
>
>Steve Navoyosky (ASMAC)
>
>
>
>
John Ladasky
*Sigh*, Mason, it's both funny and sad to see the same arguments
being raised with old Uncle Al again. For all of his railing about the
mumbo-jumbo that is presently taught as music theory, an awful lot of
people come up with the same, well defined arguments to counter him. What-
ever it is that is being taught, there are many people out there who have
a pretty consistent understanding of it.
My harmony classes made me a better composer. How about you?
--
Unique ID : Ladasky, John Joseph Jr.
Title : BA Biochemistry, U.C. Berkeley, 1989 (Ph.D. perhaps 1998???)
Location : Stanford University, Dept. of Structural Biology, Fairchild D-105
Keywords : immunology, music, running, Green
bhene...@aol.com
In article <5d1ub4$m...@cardinal2.Stanford.EDU>,
lad...@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Ladasky) writes:
>My harmony classes made me a better composer. How about you?
>
>--
>Unique ID : Ladasky, John Joseph Jr.
>Title : BA Biochemistry, U.C. Berkeley, 1989 (Ph.D. perhaps 1998???)
>Location : Stanford University, Dept. of Structural Biology, Fairchild
D-105
Well, what are you doing in a biology department?
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
Mike Kish
In article <slvrmnE4...@netcom.com>, slv...@netcom.com (Albert
Silverman) wrote:
> NO semi-tone interval of the diatonic C-scale comes into play in the
> progression from the F-major triad at {12} to the C-major triad at {1}.
> On the other hand, in the progression from G7 at {2} to the C-major triad
> at {1}, which is GBDF-->GCE, the progressions F-->E and B-->C involve the
> two semi-tone intervals (E-F) and (B-C) of the diatonic C-scale.
>
Doesn't F A C ---> E G C involve a semitone interval from F to E?
Mike
-------------------==================----------------------
Acoustic & Electric Bass
Oberlin College No Spam!
Albert Silverman
In article <smk4963-0202...@rn3887.resnet.oberlin.edu>,
Mike Kish <smk...@alpha.cc.oberlin.edu> wrote:
>In article <slvrmnE4...@netcom.com>, slv...@netcom.com (Albert
>Silverman) wrote:
>
>
>
>> progression from the F-major triad at {12} to the C-major triad at {1}.
>> On the other hand, in the progression from G7 at {2} to the C-major triad
>> at {1}, which is GBDF-->GCE, the progressions F-->E and B-->C involve the
>> two semi-tone intervals (E-F) and (B-C) of the diatonic C-scale.
>>
You are quite right! I wrote this hasty explanation without properly
reviewing it. Thank you for finding the error. I truly appreciate it when
a thoughtful reader finds an error such as this.
------------------
What I SHOULD have said (in a somewhat more involved explanation) is:
The chord FAC is a major triad with the constructional root-tone "F".
This chord can ONLY enter into a pair-bond relationship with a chord
having the constructional root-tone "Bb", which is separated by 5 scale
degrees, counting DOWN in the diatonic F-scale. That is, it is a
semi-tone interval of the diatonic Bb scale (and NOT the diatonic
C-scale) which is responsible for any tendency in a chord with the
constructional root F. In other words, the progression FAC-->EGC cannot
result from a "diatonic" tendency.
In addition, it is fundamental property of the pair-bond that _a
root-tone NEVER possesses a tendency_. On the contrary, it possesses a
slight persistence, and remains at the same pitch level to become the 5th
degree of the chord of resolution. Thus, the semi-tone interval F-->E in
the progression FAC-->EGC cannot be associated with any tendency in tone
F of the F-major triad. That is, chord EGC cannot be implied by the
combination of tendency/persistence in chord FAC, since it does not
contain tone F.
I discuss these points in detail in Part 2 of my Secrets of Harmony.
Sorry for the confusion.
Albert Silverman
Matthew H. Fields, A.Mus.D.
So what Al seems to be saying is that if a piece started out
in C, a C chord could *never anywhere in the piece*
relate to an F chord the way a G chord relates to a C chord.
Whereas if the piece was in *any other key*, it could.
His reasoning for this is that it can't because in his
tome on the topic, he says repeatedly that it can't (name
the two fallacies involved).
Those of us who descend circle-of-fifths motion and deliberately
overshoot the tonic to end down a fifth must be writing
bad data points to be ignored in his universal model.
Such data points as works of Mozart, Beethoven, and Haydn, for
starters, must be outside the great universe of "triadic music"
that he talks about.
That's important to know, especially if you're trying to figure
out how to apply his notions to composing.
Since there's no indication in his messages of how they apply
to composing, and since for 3 years all attempts to locate even
a single composition by him have failed, I suggest we leave him
alone to his concern about his authoritarianism.
But there was a project to organize some of his texts into a
tragicomic monodrama...whatever became of that?
John Ladasky
In article <19970202223...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
I'm pursuing science, one of my other great loves (I actually got
into music late, as a teenager), and I'm planning a stable career.
Seen on a bumper sticker recently: "Real musicians HAVE day jobs!"
--
Unique ID : Ladasky, John Joseph Jr.
Title : BA Biochemistry, U.C. Berkeley, 1989 (Ph.D. perhaps 1998???)
Location : Stanford University, Dept. of Structural Biology, Fairchild D-105
John Ladasky
In article <slvrmnE4...@netcom.com>,
Albert Silverman <slv...@netcom.com> wrote:
>NO semi-tone interval of the diatonic C-scale comes into play in the
>progression from the F-major triad at {12} to the C-major triad at {1}.
One semitone interval of the C-major diatonic scale can, and often
does, come into play. FAC-->EGC, for example, in three parts. See the F
and the E? Of course, with doublings we could also provide the strong
bass-voice progression F-->C.
>On the other hand, in the progression from G7 at {2} to the C-major triad
>at {1}, which is GBDF-->GCE, the progressions F-->E and B-->C involve the
>two semi-tone intervals (E-F) and (B-C) of the diatonic C-scale.
And in this example the C-major chord is in second inversion, so
it's no different than what I cited above.
Mason Stockstill
> As I previously stated, {12} is the most REMOTE root in the 12-root
> system, and there is no DYNAMIC "closure" between {12} and {1}, even
> though there appears to be on the "circle of 5ths" Until you can grasp
> this basic point, you will find yourself running around in circles.
It appears that the only reason {12} is the most remote root in the solar
system is because you say so.
So, unless I manage to believe this chicanery, or, as you put it, "grasp
this basic point," I will no longer argue with you because it is futile.
I am sure you will attempt to show that I have been cowed into submission,
but I am certain that other readers will see that the only reason I now
leave you to your limited system of chord relationships is because it is
hopeless to argue with someone who says things are true just because he
says so.
-Mason Stockstill
Albert Silverman
In article <19970202223...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
<bhene...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <5d1ub4$m...@cardinal2.Stanford.EDU>,
>lad...@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Ladasky) writes:
>
>>My harmony classes made me a better composer. How about you?
>>
>>Unique ID : Ladasky, John Joseph Jr.
>>Title : BA Biochemistry, U.C. Berkeley, 1989 (Ph.D. perhaps 1998???)
>>Location : Stanford University, Dept. of Structural Biology, Fairchild
>D-105
>
Touche!
As I have said on more than one occasion, music theory is far too
difficult for Baby John to comprehend. So he switched to the easier
subject of biology. Can't say that I blame him.
But he still desperately keeps trying to compose something, and to
convince others that he has the capability. Since he has only one
direction to go from here (up!), it is impossible to challenge his claim
that his indoctrination with Ancient Theory will help to make him a
"better" composer.
Incidentally, I recently heard (over at his hangout, the Kookoo's Nest)
the first performance of Baby John's "Concerto Biologique." I can say
that it is truly a "horror-bull" piece. It employs Psycho acoustics to
create an incredible suspension, which is never resolved!
Frightening!
>
>best wishes
>
>Ben Heneghan
Albert Silverman
In article <saxman-0302...@s189-143.resnet.ucla.edu>,
Mason Stockstill <sax...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>> As I previously stated, {12} is the most REMOTE root in the 12-root
>> system, and there is no DYNAMIC "closure" between {12} and {1}, even
>> though there appears to be on the "circle of 5ths" Until you can grasp
>> this basic point, you will find yourself running around in circles.
>
>system is because you say so.
This statement demonstrates your complete inability to THINK!
>
>So, unless I manage to believe this chicanery, or, as you put it, "grasp
>this basic point," I will no longer argue with you because it is futile.
>I am sure you will attempt to show that I have been cowed into submission,
>but I am certain that other readers will see that the only reason I now
>leave you to your limited system of chord relationships is because it is
>hopeless to argue with someone who says things are true just because he
>says so.
Bye-bye, Mason.
You had best stick to playing the saxaphone. This theory business is just
too much for you to handle. But that's OK. We need folks such as you, in
order to provide grist for the Academic Mill.
Your school will love you (translation: "your money") for it!
Craig Weston
Albert Silverman wrote:
>
> Of course they won't. THEORY describes the nature of the 12-root
> structure, along with the "pair-bond" which binds each chord to the chord
> that is one harmonic degree closer to {1}.
>
> Traditional STYLE, however, describes _how chords are used_. That is,
> which chord forms tend to be used at which structural locations, the
> frequency of use, and whether or not particular roots even appear, within
> a given stylistic framework.
>
> Thus, the progression {12}-->{1}, or the reverse progression {1}-->{12},
> both of which are "easy" since they are _free from perceptible dynamic
> effect_, is a STYLISTIC use of the {12} chord, peculiar to simple
> traditional music and also to much 20th century "popular" music.
>
> In other words, you are confusing this stylistic use of {12} with the
> theoretical statement that {12} is free from dynamic tensions and may
> therefore be used without _going against any aurally-perceptible tendencies_.
OK, let me see if I have this straight. "THEORY describes the nature of
the 12-root structure." As you have told us over and over again, this
is THEORY, not merely STYLE.
Whatever {12} (roughly analogous to IV in Roman-Numeral-speak) does is a
matter of style, because it does different things in different styles,
and is "free from perceptible dynamic effect" (whatever that means).
Since not all music accepts the "twelve root structure," or even the
notion of dividing the octave into twelve pitch-classes, isn't this just
as much a matter of style? Doesn't your theory apply only to that
style? (Haven't you repeatedly gone round and round with various other
posters about how yours is a theory of "triadic music?" What, if not a
style, is triadic music?
Music theories might rationally be divided into two categories:
analytical theory, which speaks to say something descriptive and/or
explanatory about some piece of music or group of pieces which already
exist; and speculative theory, which attempts to outline a "system" for
creating some music which doesn't (yet) exist. Note that I have
excluded compositional pedagogy (a set of instructions for creating new
music within a style or language which already exists), because it is
something different, notwithstanding the fact that much of the
literature which we think of as music theory is actually compositional
pedagogy.
Now your theory, a theory of triadic music, is a theory of a body of
music which exists (i.e. an analytical theory). Anything that is "true"
in your theory is true only because it is descriptive/explanatory with
regard to triadic music. The "12-root structure" and the "dynamic pair
bond" are not (alleged) laws of nature; they are (alleged) descriptions
of our (your?) perception of a certain repertoire of music. To dismiss
anything as "style" in this context is ludicrous, since the "12-root
structure" and the "dynamic pair bond" are also stylistic elements (i.e.
they [allegedly] typify the repertoire in question, but not other
repertoires).
Or is your theory a speculative one, predicting how triadic music "ought
to" be? In that case, all of the numerous examples of music by Bach,
Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, et al, cited by myself and many others here,
which do not behave according to your theory, indicate that the music at
hand fails to be "triadic music" (as you define it), right?
I intended to be brief :) In short, your theory, like all analytical
theories, applies only to a certain define repertoire, i.e. a style. I
believe that you are all too correct in your criticism of the way music
theory is taught in many university music departments, although I am
unshakably convinced that your approach is a lot worse.
An aside--notice the complete lack of insults or name-calling? Perhaps
you might try it sometime.
--
__________________________________________________________________
|Craig Weston--Assistant Professor of Music Theory, Composition, |
| & Electronic/Computer Music, Iowa State University|
| |
| cwe...@iastate.edu |
| http://www.music.iastate.edu/theory/weston/ |
|________________________________________________________________|
John Ladasky
In article <5d5lr2$9...@tree.Stanford.EDU>,
John Ladasky <lad...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>In article <19970202223...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> <bhene...@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <5d1ub4$m...@cardinal2.Stanford.EDU>,
>>lad...@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Ladasky) writes:
>>
>>>My harmony classes made me a better composer. How about you?
>>>
>>>--
>>>Unique ID : Ladasky, John Joseph Jr.
>>>Title : BA Biochemistry, U.C. Berkeley, 1989 (Ph.D. perhaps 1998???)
>>>Location : Stanford University, Dept. of Structural Biology, Fairchild
>>D-105
>>
>>Well, what are you doing in a biology department?
>>
>>Ben Heneghan
>
> I'm pursuing science, one of my other great loves (I actually got
>into music late, as a teenager), and I'm planning a stable career.
>
> Seen on a bumper sticker recently: "Real musicians HAVE day jobs!"
Better answer: I'm doing my best to emulate Alexander Borodin.
So there.
--
Unique ID : Ladasky, John Joseph Jr.
Title : BA Biochemistry, U.C. Berkeley, 1989 (Ph.D. perhaps 1998???)
Location : Stanford University, Dept. of Structural Biology, Fairchild D-105
Albert Silverman
In article <32F784...@iastate.edu>,
Craig Weston <cwe...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>Albert Silverman wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course they won't. THEORY describes the nature of the 12-root
>> structure, along with the "pair-bond" which binds each chord to the chord
>> that is one harmonic degree closer to {1}.
>>
>> Traditional STYLE, however, describes _how chords are used_. That is,
>> which chord forms tend to be used at which structural locations, the
>> frequency of use, and whether or not particular roots even appear, within
>> a given stylistic framework.
>>
>> Thus, the progression {12}-->{1}, or the reverse progression {1}-->{12},
>> both of which are "easy" since they are _free from perceptible dynamic
>> effect_, is a STYLISTIC use of the {12} chord, peculiar to simple
>> traditional music and also to much 20th century "popular" music.
>>
>> In other words, you are confusing this stylistic use of {12} with the
>> theoretical statement that {12} is free from dynamic tensions and may
>> therefore be used without _going against any aurally-perceptible tendencies_.
>
>the 12-root structure." As you have told us over and over again, this
>is THEORY, not merely STYLE.
>
>Whatever {12} (roughly analogous to IV in Roman-Numeral-speak) does is a
>matter of style, because it does different things in different styles,
>and is "free from perceptible dynamic effect" (whatever that means).
Yes indeed, {12} does different things in different **TRIAD-BASED**
compositional styles. Furthermore, these different styles, but still
based upon the triad, apply from the very inception of such music, and
continue today.
I find it incredible that one who teaches musical composition does not
know what "dynamic effect" means! So I shall try once again to explain
it, using that well-known Great Masterpiecea, "Old Folks at Home," which
is written in Ancient "classical" style.
The _structural distinction_ between the functional roots {2} (only one
"harmonic degree" distant from {1}) and {12} (eleven harmonic degrees
distant from {1}) is reflected in the presence of a strong,
aurally-perceptible "dynamic tension" in a major-mode 7th at {2} and the
complete lack of aurally-perceptible dynamic tension in a major triad at
{12}. Because the manner in which these two roots are USED (this is
referred to as compositional "practice") in this simple tune suggests
that they provide a "balance" about {1}, as a "fulcrum." Yes indeed,
Walter, et al. (But not THIS Al!)
However, such a "stylistic balance" in chord usage, as it were, has no
STRUCTURAL relevance. Another way of saying this is that, structurally
speaking, the Ancient "Circle of Fifths" is not really a circle. Rather,
it is a straight line, with successive tones along this line being
separated by the scale interval of a "perfect 5th," which is a pitch
interval of seven semi-tones. At one end of this line is {1}, the
preferential root-tone (which YOU know as the "tonic."). At the other end
of this line is {12}, which YOU know as the "subdominant." Hence it is
referred to as the most "remote" root in a structure in which {1} plays
the featured role. Due to their separation, these two functional roots
play dramatically different roles within the structure.
------------------------
Presented below are the first 16 measures of this song, shown in 4/4 time.
Line #1 numbers the measures
Line #2 is the melody
Line #3 shows the time durations of the melody tones.
(1=whole note; 2=half note; 4=quarter note; r=rest)
Line #4 shows the "accompanying" chords and their structural locations
Note:
There is a tie between melody tones D in measures 7-8.
Line #1: |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6..|7 |8 |
Line #2: |E..|DCED|CC.|AC. |G..|EC.|D..|D..|
Line #3: |1 |4444|22 |421 |1 |22 |1 |24r|
Line #4: |{1}C |{12}F|{1}C |{2}G7 |
Line #1: |9 |10 |11.|12 |13 |14 |15 |16|
Line #2: |E..|DCED|CC.|AC .|GEC |DD .|C..|C |
Line #3: |1 |4444|22 |421 |244 |22 |1 |1 |
Line #4: |{1}C |{12}F|{1}C|{2}G |{1}C |
Chords:
C: CEG
F: FAC
G7: GBDF
There are four short 4-measure phrases. The initial chord is a C-major
triad, from which the harmony "departs" to the F-major triad in measure
4. The second phrase begins in measure 5. Although this phrase begins
with a C-major triad, this same chord serves as the point of "return" for
the harmony. Thus the root progression {1}-->{12}-->{1} is a cycle of
departure-and-return, which AURALLY confirms tone "C" as the preferential
root-tone (the root-tone of central significance, or the Ancient "tonic").
The second phrase concludes on the G7 chord (which I call a "major-mode
7th" chord and which is commonly called a "dominant 7th"), consisting of
tones GBDF, in measure 8. Remarkably, tones B and F do not want to "stay
put"; i.e., to remain at the same pitch level. Instead, tone B possesses
an aurally-perceptible "tendency" to move upward by _one semi-tone_
toward to tone C, while tone F possesses an aurally-perceptible tendency
to move downward by _one semi-tone_ to tone E. At the same time, tone G
(the root-tone) possesses a mild aural "persistence"; i.e., it seeks to
remain at the same pitch level.
These aural urges are referred to as "dynamic" effects, since they are
TIME-dependent. They are highly volatile and their existence is directly
dependent upon _the knowledge of the identity of a previously-established
preferential root-tone_. That is, if the ear loses track of the current
(time-dependent) identity of the preferential root-tone, dynamic effect
(commonly referred to as "dynamic tension") will be lacking. In the
current example, it is _the knowledge (retained in the memory) of tone C
as the preferential root-tone_ which is responsible for the dynamic
tension in the G7 chord.
Note that the combination of tendencies/persistence in the G7 chord urges
progression to a chord containing the three tones GCE, the C-major triad.
That is, the aural dynamic tension in the G7 chord "defines" the C-major
triad of resolution. In this example, this dynamic tension in the G7
chord in measure 8 is especially strong and the ear will severely object
to a resolution in some chord which does not contain tones C and E (and,
to a lesser extent, tone G). Another way of saying this is that
progression from this chord in this particular context is "constrained"
to take place to the C-major triad.
By contrast, consider the F-major triad in the 12th measure, which is
heard in the presence of a strong identity of C as the preferential
root-tone being retained in the memory. In this case, however, _no tone
of this chord possesses an aurally-perceptible tendency_. That is, aural
dynamic effect is completely absent. Because of this lack of "dynamic
direction" in progressing from this chord, the ear will not "object" to a
progression to any other chord. Specifically, there will be no dynamic
objection when progression is from the F-major triad to the C-major triad
in measures 12-13. This is what I mean when I say that progression from a
chord at {12} is "free."
In summary, while progression from the G7 chord is dynamically
"constrained" to move to the C-major triad, progression from the F-major
triad is not dynamically directed. In common-practice STYLE, however,
progression is directed back to the C-major triad.
>
>Since not all music accepts the "twelve root structure," or even the
>notion of dividing the octave into twelve pitch-classes, isn't this just
>as much a matter of style? Doesn't your theory apply only to that
>style? (Haven't you repeatedly gone round and round with various other
>posters about how yours is a theory of "triadic music?" What, if not a
>style, is triadic music?
As I stated above, I separate music into two broad theoretical classes:
triadic and non-triadic. With reference to triadic music, "stylistic
variation" involves such things as (1) the use of a specified chord form
at different structural locations (2) variation in the elapsed time
between the departure-from and the return-to the preferential root-tone
(3) variation in inversion (4) rhythmic variations (5) counterpoint (6)
tone dispersion in time (7) tone dispersion on the musical staff, etc., etc.
On the other hand, what I refer to as "triadic theory" is a rather narrow
_statement of structural principles_, describing (1) chord construction
(2) the nature of the 12-root-tone harmonic structure (3) the pair-bond
and "voice-leading" (4) the role played by the melodic phrasing.
Having defined triadic "theory" and triadic "style" in this manner, it is
possible to identify STYLISTIC differences as those which evolve as time
progresses. For example, a minor triad at {2} is generally "forbidden" in
common-practice style, while being quite common in 20th century style.
By contrast, triadic "theory" has remained unchanged throughout the
evolution in triadic style from the common-practice period through the
current time.
>
>Music theories might rationally be divided into two categories:
>analytical theory, which speaks to say something descriptive and/or
>explanatory about some piece of music or group of pieces which already
>exist; and speculative theory, which attempts to outline a "system" for
>creating some music which doesn't (yet) exist. Note that I have
>excluded compositional pedagogy (a set of instructions for creating new
>music within a style or language which already exists), because it is
>something different, notwithstanding the fact that much of the
>literature which we think of as music theory is actually compositional
>pedagogy.
>
>Now your theory, a theory of triadic music, is a theory of a body of
>music which exists (i.e. an analytical theory). Anything that is "true"
>in your theory is true only because it is descriptive/explanatory with
>regard to triadic music. The "12-root structure" and the "dynamic pair
>bond" are not (alleged) laws of nature; they are (alleged) descriptions
>of our (your?) perception of a certain repertoire of music. To dismiss
>anything as "style" in this context is ludicrous, since the "12-root
>structure" and the "dynamic pair bond" are also stylistic elements (i.e.
>they [allegedly] typify the repertoire in question, but not other
>repertoires).
This is NOT correct! The 12-root structure and the pair-bond (which you
clearly do not understand) are *PRINCIPLES* that are indeed applicable to
the common-practice repertoire, even though they are foreign to Ancient
so-called "theory."
>
>Or is your theory a speculative one, predicting how triadic music "ought
>to" be? In that case, all of the numerous examples of music by Bach,
>Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, et al, cited by myself and many others here,
>which do not behave according to your theory, indicate that the music at
>hand fails to be "triadic music" (as you define it), right?
WRONG! Let me repeat, again and again and again and again....My theory is
a _statement of principles_, and cannot be equated with "how triadic
music should be composed." Being that a proper statement of musical
principles explains what is being HEARD, and does not specify how music
is supposed to behave, I find your statement to be absurd.
Now then, name one **PRINCIPLE** from my set which is in conflict with
any of these "numerous examples" to which you refer. I am waiting.
>
>I intended to be brief :) In short, your theory, like all analytical
>theories, applies only to a certain define repertoire, i.e. a style. I
>believe that you are all too correct in your criticism of the way music
>theory is taught in many university music departments, although I am
>unshakably convinced that your approach is a lot worse.
What on earth are you talking about?
**I DO NOT HAVE AN "APPROACH"!!**
What I DO have is a "viewpoint." Your statement implies that I am
advocating a _METHOD of composition_. Nothing could be farther from the
truth. I have never claimed that describing harmonic structural
principles can, in any way, shape, or form, substitute for teaching the
"nuts and bolts" (practice) of musical composition. Rather, the purpose
of my theory is to provide an AURALLY-CORRELATABLE _understanding of triadic
chord relationships_. Ancient Art fails miserably to provide such an
understanding, while at the same time prescribing a method of
composition, under the guise of "theory."
You are of course thinking in traditional terms, wherein "theory" is
equated with a METHOD of composing (the practice of composition), as
opposed to a STATEMENT OF STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLES. This false equation
theory with practice, which Musical Academia seems unable to understand
and/or abandon, lies at the very heart of the terribly flawed teaching of
music "theory" in our educational institutions.
Tragically, it has always been this way and it always WILL be. Ancient
Authority is a thing to behold!
>
>An aside--notice the complete lack of insults or name-calling? Perhaps
>you might try it sometime.
Now here's MY aside:
I cannot understand why you continue to respond to my posts in this
newsgroup (which have not been addressed to you), while at the same time
urging others just to ignore me, in the (futile) hope that I will
eventually "go away."
I also cannot understand what you can possibly hope to gain from a dialog
with an "asshole"!
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
duggie
Craig Weston wrote:
>
> Albert Silverman wrote:
>
> >
> > Of course they won't. THEORY describes the nature of the 12-root
> > structure, along with the "pair-bond" which binds each chord to the chord
> > that is one harmonic degree closer to {1}.
> >
> > Traditional STYLE, however, describes _how chords are used_. That is,
> > which chord forms tend to be used at which structural locations, the
> > frequency of use, and whether or not particular roots even appear, within
> > a given stylistic framework.
> >
> > Thus, the progression {12}-->{1}, or the reverse progression {1}-->{12},
> > both of which are "easy" since they are _free from perceptible dynamic
> > effect_, is a STYLISTIC use of the {12} chord, peculiar to simple
> > traditional music and also to much 20th century "popular" music.
> >
> > In other words, you are confusing this stylistic use of {12} with the
> > theoretical statement that {12} is free from dynamic tensions and may
> > therefore be used without _going against any aurally-perceptible tendencies_.
>
> the 12-root structure." As you have told us over and over again, this
> is THEORY, not merely STYLE.
>
> Whatever {12} (roughly analogous to IV in Roman-Numeral-speak) does is a
> matter of style, because it does different things in different styles,
> and is "free from perceptible dynamic effect" (whatever that means).
>
> notion of dividing the octave into twelve pitch-classes, isn't this just
> as much a matter of style? Doesn't your theory apply only to that
> style? (Haven't you repeatedly gone round and round with various other
> posters about how yours is a theory of "triadic music?" What, if not a
> style, is triadic music?
>
> analytical theory, which speaks to say something descriptive and/or
> explanatory about some piece of music or group of pieces which already
> exist; and speculative theory, which attempts to outline a "system" for
> creating some music which doesn't (yet) exist. Note that I have
> excluded compositional pedagogy (a set of instructions for creating new
> music within a style or language which already exists), because it is
> something different, notwithstanding the fact that much of the
> literature which we think of as music theory is actually compositional
> pedagogy.
>
> Now your theory, a theory of triadic music, is a theory of a body of
> music which exists (i.e. an analytical theory). Anything that is "true"
> in your theory is true only because it is descriptive/explanatory with
> regard to triadic music. The "12-root structure" and the "dynamic pair
> bond" are not (alleged) laws of nature; they are (alleged) descriptions
> of our (your?) perception of a certain repertoire of music. To dismiss
> anything as "style" in this context is ludicrous, since the "12-root
> structure" and the "dynamic pair bond" are also stylistic elements (i.e.
> they [allegedly] typify the repertoire in question, but not other
> repertoires).
>
> to" be? In that case, all of the numerous examples of music by Bach,
> Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, et al, cited by myself and many others here,
> which do not behave according to your theory, indicate that the music at
> hand fails to be "triadic music" (as you define it), right?
>
> theories, applies only to a certain define repertoire, i.e. a style. I
> believe that you are all too correct in your criticism of the way music
> theory is taught in many university music departments, although I am
> unshakably convinced that your approach is a lot worse.
>
> you might try it sometime.
> __________________________________________________________________
> |Craig Weston--Assistant Professor of Music Theory, Composition, |
> | & Electronic/Computer Music, Iowa State University|
> | |
> | cwe...@iastate.edu |
> | http://www.music.iastate.edu/theory/weston/ |
> |________________________________________________________________|
Craig, I agree completely. -Doug
--
Artist- oil/canvas, mixed media, and music composition/production
Craig Weston
I had a little trouble with the newsreader today...
Quoted material is indented, with author identified. The original
statements of this post are the ones aligned all the way to the left
edge. Sorry for any confusion
Silverman:
In other words, you are confusing this stylistic use of {12} with
the
theoretical statement that {12} is free from dynamic tensions and
may
therefore be used without _going against any
aurally-perceptible tendencies_.
Weston:
OK, let me see if I have this straight. "THEORY describes the
nature of
the 12-root structure." As you have told us over and over again,
this
is THEORY, not merely STYLE.
Whatever {12} (roughly analogous to IV in Roman-Numeral-speak) does
is a
matter of style, because it does different things in different
styles,
and is "free from perceptible dynamic effect" (whatever that means).
Silverman:
Yes indeed, {12} does different things in different **TRIAD-BASED**
compositional styles. Furthermore, these different styles, but still
based upon the triad, apply from the very inception of such music, and
continue today.
But my point is, "triad-based" music *is* a style.
<long analysis we've seen before snipped
Weston:
Since not all music accepts the "twelve root structure," or even the
notion of dividing the octave into twelve pitch-classes, isn't this
just
as much a matter of style? Doesn't your theory apply only to that
style? (Haven't you repeatedly gone round and round with various
other
posters about how yours is a theory of "triadic music?" What, if
not a
style, is triadic music?
Silverman:
As I stated above, I separate music into two broad theoretical
classes:
triadic and non-triadic. With reference to triadic music, "stylistic
variation" involves such things as (1) the use of a specified chord
form
at different structural locations (2) variation in the elapsed time
between the departure-from and the return-to the preferential
root-tone
(3) variation in inversion (4) rhythmic variations (5) counterpoint
(6)
tone dispersion in time (7) tone dispersion on the musical staff,
etc., etc.
Fine. How is it that, say, Baroque vs Romantice is a stylistic
difference, but triadic vs non-triadic isn't? It would be quite easy to
conclude that your distinction between theory and style is arbitrary and
self-serving. That's my basic point here.
Silverman:
Having defined triadic "theory" and triadic "style" in this manner, it
is
possible to identify STYLISTIC differences as those which evolve as
time
progresses. For example, a minor triad at {2} is generally "forbidden"
in
common-practice style, while being quite common in 20th century style.
By contrast, triadic "theory" has remained unchanged throughout the
evolution in triadic style from the common-practice period through the
current time.
Sure. But the existence of an octave divided into 12 pitch classes, and
the possibility of those twelve notes functioning as roots of chords
also evolved as time progressed. That makes *them* elements of style,
too, right?
There is virtually *nothing* of any value whatsoever that can be said
about music that is not tied to style.
Weston:
Silverman:
This is NOT correct! The 12-root structure and the pair-bond (which
you
clearly do not understand) are *PRINCIPLES* that are indeed applicable
to
the common-practice repertoire, even though they are foreign to
Ancient
so-called "theory."
Re-read my statement: the "repertoire in question" is triadic music.
That seems clear to me, but maybe it's not...
Weston:
Or is your theory a speculative one, predicting how triadic music
"ought
to" be? In that case, all of the numerous examples of music by
Bach,
Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, et al, cited by myself and many others
here,
which do not behave according to your theory, indicate that the
music at
hand fails to be "triadic music" (as you define it), right?
Silverman:
WRONG! Let me repeat, again and again and again and again....My theory
is
a _statement of principles_, and cannot be equated with "how triadic
music should be composed." Being that a proper statement of musical
principles explains what is being HEARD, and does not specify how
music
is supposed to behave, I find your statement to be absurd.
Newsflash: that was a rhetorical statement. I've said that theories of
music are either anaytical or speculative, and noted that yours is
clearly analytical. Therefore, a question that begins," Or is your
theory a speculative one" is clearly a rhetorical question.
Weston:
I intended to be brief :) In short, your theory, like all
analytical
theories, applies only to a certain define repertoire, i.e. a
style. I
believe that you are all too correct in your criticism of the way
music
theory is taught in many university music departments, although I am
unshakably convinced that your approach is a lot worse.
Silverman:
What on earth are you talking about?
**I DO NOT HAVE AN "APPROACH"!!**
What I DO have is a "viewpoint."
Right--I must have overlooked the vast difference between a viewpoint
and an approach.
Silverman:
Your statement implies that I am
advocating a _METHOD of composition_. Nothing could be farther from
the
truth.
You're right. Nothing could be further from the truth than your
statement, "Your statement implies that I am advocating a _METHOD of
composition_." Go back and read my paragraph which begins "music
theories might rationally be divided into two categories." Note well
the passage that begins, "Note that I have excluded compositional
pedagogy."
Silverman:
You are of course thinking in traditional terms, wherein "theory" is
equated with a METHOD of composing (the practice of composition),
(again--yawn)
Weston:
An aside--notice the complete lack of insults or name-calling?
Perhaps
you might try it sometime.
Silverman:
Now here's MY aside:
I cannot understand why you continue to respond to my posts in this
newsgroup (which have not been addressed to you), while at the same
time
urging others just to ignore me, in the (futile) hope that I will
eventually "go away."
1. This newsgroup is a public forum. Anything posted here is addressed
to whomever reads it.
2. You should be flattered--it's obviously a sign that I think there's
something worth arguing about in what you post. In your hubris you've
apparently missed the fact that I am one of the few denizens of this
newsgroup who respond to you (sometimes, at least) not as if you are
some sort of crackpot idiot, but as someone who might be capable of a
dialog about what I see as the flaws of your theory.
3. I have, of course, occaisionally urged people who just want to flame
about it not to bother; you're right.
Silverman:
I also cannot understand what you can possibly hope to gain from a
dialog
with an "asshole"!
True, you do occaisionally bring out the worst in people here, myself
included. That is a large part of your intention, no? I often tell my
two-year old daughter that she has little grounds for complaint when,
after trying so hard to raise the dander of her four-year-old brother,
she finally succeeds.
Craig Weston
Whoops, that didn't work too well.
Here's the same post--hopefully the formatting will be better this time
Silverman:
In other words, you are confusing this stylistic use of {12}
with the
theoretical statement that {12} is free from dynamic tensions
and may
therefore be used without _going against any
aurally-perceptible tendencies_.
Weston:
OK, let me see if I have this straight.
"THEORY describes the nature of
the 12-root structure." As you have told
us over and over again, this
is THEORY, not merely STYLE.
Whatever {12} (roughly analogous to IV in
Roman-Numeral-speak) does is a
matter of style, because it does different
things in different styles,
and is "free from perceptible dynamic effect"
(whatever that means).
Silverman:
Yes indeed, {12} does different things in different **TRIAD-BASED**
compositional styles. Furthermore, these different styles, but still
based upon the triad, apply from the very inception of such music, and
continue today.
But my point is, "triad-based" music *is* a style.
<long analysis we've seen before snipped
Weston:
Since not all music accepts the "twelve root structure," or even the
notion of dividing the octave into twelve pitch-classes,
isn't this just
as much a matter of style? Doesn't your theory apply only to that
style? (Haven't you repeatedly gone round and round with
various other
posters about how yours is a theory of "triadic music?"
What, if not a
style, is triadic music?
Silverman:
As I stated above, I separate music into two
broad theoretical classes:
triadic and non-triadic. With reference to triadic music,
"stylistic
variation" involves such things as (1) the use of a
specified chord form
at different structural locations (2) variation in the elapsed time
between the departure-from and the return-to the preferential
root-tone
(3) variation in inversion (4) rhythmic variations
(5) counterpoint (6) tone dispersion in time (7) tone
dispersion on the musical staff, etc., etc.
Fine. How is it that, say, Baroque vs Romantice is a stylistic
difference, but triadic vs non-triadic isn't? It would be quite easy to
conclude that your distinction between theory and style is arbitrary and
self-serving. That's my basic point here.
Silverman:
Having defined triadic "theory" and triadic "style" in this
manner, it is
possible to identify STYLISTIC differences as those which
evolve as time
progresses. For example, a minor triad at {2} is generally
"forbidden" in
common-practice style, while being quite common in 20th century style.
By contrast, triadic "theory" has remained unchanged throughout the
evolution in triadic style from the common-practice period through the
current time.
Sure. But the existence of an octave divided into 12 pitch classes, and
the possibility of tose twelve notes functioning as roots of chords also
evolved as time progressed. That makes *them* elements of style, too,
right?
There is virtually *nothing* of any value whatsoever that can be said
about music that is not tied to style.
Weston:
Silverman:
This is NOT correct! The 12-root structure and the
pair-bond (which you
clearly do not understand) are *PRINCIPLES* that are indeed
applicable to
the common-practice repertoire, even though they are
foreign to Ancient
so-called "theory."
Re-read my statement: the "repertoire in question" is triadic music.
That seems clear to me, but maybe it's not...
Weston:
Or is your theory a speculative one, predicting how
triadic music "ought
to" be? In that case, all of the numerous examples of
music by Bach,
Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, et al, cited by myself and
many others here,
which do not behave according to your theory, indicate
that the music at
hand fails to be "triadic music" (as you define it), right?
..Silverman:
WRONG! Let me repeat, again and again and again and again....
My theory is
a _statement of principles_, and cannot be equated with "how triadic
music should be composed." Being that a proper statement of musical
principles explains what is being HEARD, and does not
specify how music
is supposed to behave, I find your statement to be absurd.
Newsflash: that was a rhetorical statement. I've said that theories of
music are either anaytical or speculative, and noted that yours is
clearly analytical. Therefore, a question that begins," Or is your
theory a speculative one" is clearly a rhetorical question.
Weston:
I intended to be brief :) In short, your theory,
like all analytical
theories, applies only to a certain define repertoire,
i.e. a style. I
believe that you are all too correct in your criticism
of the way music
theory is taught in many university music departments, although I am
unshakably convinced that your approach is a lot worse.
Silverman:
What on earth are you talking about?
**I DO NOT HAVE AN "APPROACH"!!**
What I DO have is a "viewpoint."
Right--I must have overlooked the vast difference between a viewpoint
and an approach.
Silverman:
Your statement implies that I am
advocating a _METHOD of composition_. Nothing could be
farther from the
truth.
You're right. Nothing could be further from the truth than your
statement, "Your statement implies that I am advocating a _METHOD of
composition_." Go back and read my paragraph which begins "music
theories might rationally be divided into two categories." Note well
the passage that begins, "Note that I have excluded compositional
pedagogy."
Silverman:
You are of course thinking in traditional terms, wherein "theory" is
equated with a METHOD of composing (the practice of composition),
(again--yawn)
Weston:
An aside--notice the complete lack of insults
or name-calling? Perhaps
you might try it sometime.
Silverman:
Now here's MY aside:
I cannot understand why you continue to respond to my posts in this
newsgroup (which have not been addressed to you), while at
the same time
urging others just to ignore me, in the (futile) hope that I will
eventually "go away."
1. This newsgroup is a public forum. Anything posted here is addressed
to whomever reads it.
2. You should be flattered--it's obviously a sign that I think there's
something worth arguing about in what you post. In your hubris you've
apparently missed the fact that I am one of the few denizens of this
newsgroup who respond to not as if you are some sort of crackpot idiot,
but as someone who might be capable of a dialog about what I see as the
flaws of your theory.
3. I have, of course, occaisionally urged people who just want to flame
about it not to bother; you're right.
Silverman:
I also cannot understand what you can possibly hope to
gain from a dialog
with an "asshole"!
pcol...@forest.drew.edu
In article <slvrmnE5...@netcom.com>, slv...@netcom.com (Albert Silverman) writes:
> Triadic music has its own theoretical identity, based upon melodic
> "tendencies" _associated with the two semi-tone intervals of the diatonic
> major scale_. These "diatonic tendencies" are in evidence in the
> so-called Ancient "dominant-tonic" chord relationship, which may exist
> _between any two "adjacent" chords in the harmonic structure_.
Yes. I agree that triadic vs non-triadic harmony is not a question of
style. While one may be a characteristic of certain styles, I have a real
problem calling it a style within itself.
> Our Ancient Theorist (and therefore you) would call this relationship in
> some "remote" part of the harmonic structure a SECONDARY dominant-tonic
> relationship. This is nonsensical, however, and it does NOT (repeat: NOT)
> "fit" within his "theory" that is based upon chord construction upon the
> tones of a FIXED diatonic scale. In other words, such construction is
> fatally flawed, and the "secondary dominant" attempt by our Ancient
> Theorist to "explain" the existence of dominant-tonic progressions _other
> than V-->I_ is ludicrous.
[deleted rant]
If memory serves me correctly, the secondary dominant is NOT based on the
tones of the FIXED diatonic scale. The secondary dominant relies upon
borrowed note(s) from the "new" tonic's scale. You put much emphasis on
the "FIXED" diatonic scale when, in reality, it's not fixed at all.
> In summary, the ORGANIZATION of chords within the harmonic structure is
> based upon the two semi-tone intervals of the diatonic scale. You can't
> get there from here unless you can understand this concept, and you
> cannot understand this concept since Ancient Authority will not permit
> you to understand it. So be it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you making this statement because it is
from these two intervals that the composer will find the most tension to
drive the piece forwards? If you are, then I will agree with you to an
extent--at the most fundamental level--that your statement is correct.
I'm going to throw this out, and I'm sure your hair will fall out at the
thought of this statement, but if my interpretation of your ideas is
correct, then doesn't this support the inevatibility of the dominant-tonic
relationship in triadic music (given that you believe in a diatonic scale
system)?
- Pinney
Albert Silverman
In article <32FF2C...@iastate.edu>,
Craig Weston <cwe...@iastate.edu> wrote:
[deleted]
>
>Fine. How is it that, say, Baroque vs Romantice is a stylistic
>difference, but triadic vs non-triadic isn't? It would be quite easy to
>conclude that your distinction between theory and style is arbitrary and
>self-serving. That's my basic point here.
Triadic music has its own theoretical identity, based upon melodic
"tendencies" _associated with the two semi-tone intervals of the diatonic
major scale_. These "diatonic tendencies" are in evidence in the
so-called Ancient "dominant-tonic" chord relationship, which may exist
_between any two "adjacent" chords in the harmonic structure_.
Our Ancient Theorist (and therefore you) would call this relationship in
some "remote" part of the harmonic structure a SECONDARY dominant-tonic
relationship. This is nonsensical, however, and it does NOT (repeat: NOT)
"fit" within his "theory" that is based upon chord construction upon the
tones of a FIXED diatonic scale. In other words, such construction is
fatally flawed, and the "secondary dominant" attempt by our Ancient
Theorist to "explain" the existence of dominant-tonic progressions _other
than V-->I_ is ludicrous.
But you do not understand this, and it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for you to
understand the nature of the pair-bond relationship, since you are
hog-tied to the ERRONEOUS Ancient notion that the role played by the
diatonic scale in harmonic theory is as a _fixed scale_, with chords
being constructed upon its tones as "roots."
In summary, the ORGANIZATION of chords within the harmonic structure is
based upon the two semi-tone intervals of the diatonic scale. You can't
get there from here unless you can understand this concept, and you
cannot understand this concept since Ancient Authority will not permit
you to understand it. So be it.
Non-triadic music is not organized in a structure which is derived from
the two semi-tone intervals of the diatonic major scale. Hence it is a
separate and distinct theoretical entity; unlike triadic music, however,
it has many different subsets. Because of this "theoretical split"
between triadic and non-triadic music, the line between them _cannot be
crossed_ under the umbrella of "a change in style." Period.
[deleted]
>>
>Sure. But the existence of an octave divided into 12 pitch classes, and
>the possibility of tose twelve notes functioning as roots of chords also
>evolved as time progressed. That makes *them* elements of style, too,
>right?
WRONG, for reasons which I stated above.
>
>There is virtually *nothing* of any value whatsoever that can be said
>about music that is not tied to style.
***WRONG*** again. Not only is it entirely possible, but virtually
mandatory, that chord relationships be expressed as a set of ABSTRACT
principles, which serve to "explain" musical practice.
For example, I can state how a "chord" is constructed, without tying it
to a specific style. As another example, I can state how a chord is
inverted, without tying it to a specific style. I can state the concept
of departure-and-return without tying it to a specific style. I can state
the nature of the pair-bond relationship between two chords, without
tying this to a specific style.
Etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum. These are ABSTRACT principles and they
ARE of value, indeed of great value, when stated _without tying them to
some particular style_. As I have stated over and over again: practice is
concrete, theory is abstract. You cannot understand this. The basic flaw
in the teaching of music in the traditionally-oriented Musical
Establishment is its failure to divorce theory from practice. Ancient
Authority cannot permit this to be done.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
[deleted]
Albert Silverman
In article <1997Feb11.233238.154925@forest>, <pcol...@forest.drew.edu> wrote:
>In article <slvrmnE5...@netcom.com>, slv...@netcom.com (Albert Silverman) writes:
>
>> "tendencies" _associated with the two semi-tone intervals of the diatonic
>> major scale_. These "diatonic tendencies" are in evidence in the
>> so-called Ancient "dominant-tonic" chord relationship, which may exist
>> _between any two "adjacent" chords in the harmonic structure_.
>
>style. While one may be a characteristic of certain styles, I have a real
>problem calling it a style within itself.
>
>> some "remote" part of the harmonic structure a SECONDARY dominant-tonic
>> relationship. This is nonsensical, however, and it does NOT (repeat: NOT)
>> "fit" within his "theory" that is based upon chord construction upon the
>> tones of a FIXED diatonic scale. In other words, such construction is
>> fatally flawed, and the "secondary dominant" attempt by our Ancient
>> Theorist to "explain" the existence of dominant-tonic progressions _other
>> than V-->I_ is ludicrous.
>
>
>If memory serves me correctly, the secondary dominant is NOT based on the
>tones of the FIXED diatonic scale. The secondary dominant relies upon
>borrowed note(s) from the "new" tonic's scale. You put much emphasis on
>the "FIXED" diatonic scale when, in reality, it's not fixed at all.
The idea of "borrowing" notes from the "new" tonic's scale is absurd. The
whole point is that _chord construction upon the tones of a diatonic
scale AS "ROOTS" is irrelevant, since it has no AURAL CORRELATION_. The
only thing that makes any sense is to incorporate the idea of requiring
_twelve different scales for chord construction_ into the basic
theoretical foundation. This is what I have done.
>
>> In summary, the ORGANIZATION of chords within the harmonic structure is
>> based upon the two semi-tone intervals of the diatonic scale. You can't
>> get there from here unless you can understand this concept, and you
>> cannot understand this concept since Ancient Authority will not permit
>> you to understand it. So be it.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you making this statement because it is
>from these two intervals that the composer will find the most tension to
>drive the piece forwards?
I would not put it in these terms. Starting at ground zero, what I call
the "pair-bond" (between two chords in a 5th-degree root-tone
relationship) is dependent upon these two semi-tone intervals.
Proceeding from ground zero, "tendencies" (which are MELODIC in nature,
and having nothing whatsoever to do with so-called "dissonant intervals")
within the pair-bond relationship, under very special circumstances,
become AURALLY PERCEPTIBLE. If so, they _drive progression from one chord
(the "dominant") to the other chord (the "tonic") of the pair-bond_. The
classic example of this is the Ancient "dominant 7th" chord at "V",
which, under appropriate phrasing circumstances and retention of the
tonic in the memory, possesses two aurally-perceptible "tendencies" which
drive progression to the "tonic" major triad.
In MOST cases, however, the "tendencies" of the pair-bond are IMPLIED,
which means that they are _not aurally perceptible_ and do not therefore
drive progression to the tonic chord. Nevertheless, as is easily
observable, "chain" root progressions are quite common, even though there
is no aurally perceptible dynamic tension to drive progression to the
tonic chord. Under these circumstances, progression may readily take
place to a "non-tonic" chord. (note: I can't get The Perfesser to
understand this!)
These are the concepts which I discuss in detail in Part 2 of my Secrets
of Harmony.
>If you are, then I will agree with you to an
>extent--at the most fundamental level--that your statement is correct.
>I'm going to throw this out, and I'm sure your hair will fall out at the
>thought of this statement, but if my interpretation of your ideas is
>correct, then doesn't this support the inevatibility of the dominant-tonic
>relationship in triadic music (given that you believe in a diatonic scale
>system)?
>
>- Pinney
**OF COURSE**!
This is the theoretical basis of triadic music. Why should my hair fall
out at the thought of this statement, when this is exactly the whole
point that I am trying to get across in my Secrets of Harmony? The tragic
part of this is that this concept has been kept "secret" by Ancient
ineptitude, and perpetuated to the end of eternity in Musical Academia,
under Ancient Authority.
What you seem to be missing, however, is that I have formulated an
organized approach to the mechanism by which the diatonic scale actually
is responsible for the harmonic structure. Ancient Theory does NOT do
this. Its premise of constructing chords upon the tones of a FIXED
diatonic scale is ERRONEOUS.
And yes, this is what it does. But then, forced to do so by the reality
that the "theory" does not correlate with compositional practice, it
frantically attempts to patch it up by stirring into the bitter
concoction the concept of the "secondary dominant."
The result is a witch's brew that is ludicrous and virtually
incomprehensible.
Albert Silverman
Matthew H. Fields
"Triadic music" is surely too broad to be a style.
But music in which tendencies to descend a circle of fifths towards
a home chord---now *that*'s a small stylistic subset of music made with
triads. Schoenberg's Book of the Hanging Garden is built mostly out
of triads, and doesn't work at all that way, but still manages to
be beautiful and romantic.